Rivers of Life: Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity

Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity

A NatureServe ® Publication Rivers of Life

Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity

Edited by Lawrence L. Master, Stephanie R. Flack and Bruce A. Stein

With Contributions by James R. Aldrich, James Fries, Randy Haddock, George Ivey, Kyla J. Lawson, Andy Laurenzi, Kristi Lynett, Jennie Myers, Robert M. Riordan, Caryn Vaughn, Diane Vosick

The Nature Conservancy, in cooperation with Natural Heritage Programs and the Association for Biodiversity Information

A NatureServe ® Publication This report is based on material developed for the forthcoming book Precious Heritage: The Status of Biodiversity in the United States, a joint project of The Nature Conservancy and the Association for Biodiversity Information.

Citation: Master, Lawrence L., Stephanie R. Flack and Bruce A. Stein, eds. 1998. Rivers of Life: Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

ISBN: 1-886765-09-X

This publication is available on The Nature Conservancy’s Web site at http://www.tnc.org/science/.

This publication is a product of NatureServe®, which is made possible by Canon U.S.A.’s Clean Earth Campaign. The NatureServe® program is designed to promote biodiversity conservation by raising public awareness and advancing scientific knowledge.

® NATURESERVE: Science for Conservation

Program Sponsor Table of Contents

Summary ...... 1

A Global Center of Freshwater Biodiversity: The United States...... 3 Fresh Waters Run Rich ...... 4

Imperiled Assets: Freshwater Species at Risk ...... 6 Where Is the Problem? ...... 8 State of the States ...... 8 A Regional Perspective ...... 9 On Salmon and Subspecies...... 10 Threats to Freshwater Species and Systems ...... 12 Valuing Our Freshwaters ...... 14 Challenges of Aquatic Conservation...... 16 Hope for the Future ...... 16

Critical Watersheds for Conservation ...... 18 Setting Conservation Priorities ...... 18 Hot Spots for Freshwater Species At Risk ...... 18 An Aquatic Portfolio: Critical Watersheds for Conservation ...... 21

Rivers of Life: Working to Protect Freshwater Hotspots ...... 24 Clinch River, Virginia and Tennessee...... 25 Green River, Kentucky ...... 28 Cahaba River, Alabama ...... 30 Conasauga River, Tennessee and Georgia ...... 32 Altamaha River, Georgia...... 34 Kiamichi River, Oklahoma ...... 36 Guadalupe River, Texas...... 38 Verde River, Arizona ...... 41 Elements of Success...... 44 A Catalyzing Event ...... 44 Fight, Flee, or Cooperate? ...... 44 Create a Forum for Discussion and Action...... 45 Identify the Issues and Get the Facts ...... 45 Assemble the Resources to Solve the Problem ...... 46

Safeguarding Our Rivers of Life ...... 47

Cited References...... 48

Additional Resources ...... 52

Appendices...... 55 Appendix A: Numbers of At-Risk Fish and Mussel Species in Freshwater Regions of the United States ...... 55 Appendix B: U.S. Watershed Hotspots with 10 or More At-Risk Freshwater Fish and Mussel Species ...... 57 Appendix C: Critical Watersheds to Conserve At-Risk Freshwater Fish and Mussel Species ...... 59

Appendix D: U.S. State and Regional Natural Heritage Data Centers ...... 66

Acknowledgments ...... 70

Credits ...... 71

Figures and Tables

Table 1. Global Significance of U.S. Freshwater Species ...... 4 Figure 1. Proportion of U.S. Species At Risk ...... 7 Figure 2. State Distribution of At-Risk Freshwater Fishes ...... 8 Figure 3. Regional Concentrations of At-Risk Fish and Mussel Species ...... 10 Figure 4. Regional Concentrations of At-Risk Salmon Stocks ...... 11 Figure 5. Watershed Hotspots for At-Risk Fish and Mussel Species ...... 19 Figure 6. Critical Watersheds to Conserve U.S. Fish and Mussel Species ...... 21 Summary

idden beneath the shimmering surface of our nation’s rivers and lakes is an extraordinary variety of aquatic creatures, largely unseen and unfamiliar to most of us. Though we areH a nation devoted to the beauty and recreational values of our streams, creeks, and rivers, few of us know that U.S. streamlife is exceptional on a global level, even compared with the tropics. This remarkable freshwater diversity should be a source of great national pride. Instead, it is a source of grave concern. Rivers and lakes are the circulatory system of our nation. These ecosystems furnish a variety of services, from clean drinking water and recreational opportunities to transportation and food. The very quality of our lives, and freshwater species’ survival, is tied to their health.

Our Aquatic Impoverishment

Inhabitants of freshwater ecosystems have, as a whole, suffered far more than plants and animals dependent on upland habitats such as forests and prairies. Although the plight of salmon in the Pacific Northwest and New England is widely recognized, this report focuses on the many other freshwater species groups that are in dire straits: Two-thirds of the nation’s freshwater mussels are at risk of extinction, and almost 1 in 10 may already have vanished forever. Half of all crayfish species are in jeopardy. Freshwater fishes and amphibians are doing little better, with about 40 percent of the species in these groups at risk. These losses are not confined to urban areas or to a specific region of the country. Aquatic systems are under stress nationwide, with the largest number of imperiled species found in the South- east. Arid western states have fewer species, but a greater proportion of them are at risk of extinction. These dramatic declines in freshwater animal species are due primarily to the intensive human use—and abuse—of their habitats. Two centuries of dam construction, water withdrawals, land-use alterations, pollution, and introductions of non-native species have caused accelerated and, in many

State and federal agencies are working together to reintroduce the endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) to Arizona’s upper Verde River, profiled on page 41. © Kate Spencer

1 cases, irreparable losses of freshwater species. Rivers are affected by, and reflect, the condition of the lands through which they travel. Since the Clean Water Act became law in 1972, the United States has made great strides in improving water quality by controlling “end of pipe” pollution, but nonpoint source pollution—polluted and sediment-laden runoff from urban and rural areas—is still a major problem. Freshwater species and habitats provide a wealth of goods and services to humanity. Nearly a billion people worldwide rely on fishes as their primary source of protein. In 1990, the total global harvest of freshwater fish was valued at $8.2 billion; the value of the U.S. freshwater sport fishery in 1991 was nearly twice that, with direct expenditures totaling approximately $16 billion. And these figures do not reflect the immense worth of ecological services provided by freshwater systems, such as flood control.

Watersheds: A Practical Approach to Conservation

Given the fluid nature of water, protecting aquatic biodiversity is no easy task. Human activities directly upslope, or even miles upstream, may affect streamlife in another place. Many concerned citizens know that watersheds—natural drainage basins—are critical for addressing water-related issues, from protecting drinking water to conserving freshwater species. But which watersheds should be priorities for conservation attention? Where should we allocate scarce conservation resources to protect freshwater species and ecosystems? Although at-risk freshwater species can be assessed at the level of states or large regional watersheds, Rivers of Life: Critical Watersheds for Protecting Freshwater Biodiversity presents the first analysis to define conservation priorities on a scale that is practical for action. Approximately 2,100 small watersheds cover the continental United States. These small watershed areas reflect a scale appropriate for planning and carrying out conservation actions. Using information from natural heritage data centers and other sources, this report identifies the 15 percent of these small watershed areas that will conserve populations of all freshwater fish and mussel species at risk in the United States. These watersheds form a blueprint for where targeted conservation actions could provide the greatest benefit for the largest number of vulnerable freshwater fish and mussel species.

Rivers of Life

Protecting and restoring priority watersheds will take creativity, commitment, and the involvement of local communities. The returns from such efforts will benefit not only the rich diversity of fishes and other aquatic life but the human communities themselves. The art and science of aquatic conservation are exemplified by work under way in eight of these critical watersheds. Ranging from the mean- dering Altamaha in Georgia to the upper Verde River of Arizona, these watersheds, which are profiled in the following pages, reflect the importance of local action and community-level partnerships in saving freshwater species and ecosystems.

2 A Global Center of Freshwater Biodiversity: The United States

he decline of salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest and New England is the focus of great public attention, investment, and debate. Few people recognize, however, what an astonishing abundance of other life forms also inhabits our nation’s streams, rivers, and lakes. Mostly hiddenT from view, these creatures go largely unnoticed and unap- preciated. Colorful and whimsical names hint at the diversity and beauty living beneath these waters: Wabash pigtoe mussel, dromedary pearly mussel, white catspaw pearly mussel, warpaint shiner, Devils Hole pupfish, and frecklebelly madtom. Worthy of these epithets, many freshwater species display complex and intriguing lifestyles that have evolved as adaptations to their watery world. Consider the orangenacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis). As adults, these mussels are unable to move a significant distance. How, then, can they colonize new habitat, especially upstream areas? The orangenacre mucket employs a sophisticated ruse to get help from passing fishes in moving its young around. The female mussel creates a fishing lure, using her offspring as bait.1 The larval offspring are packaged at the end of a jelly-like tube, which can stretch up to eight feet. Dancing in the current of rocky riffles, the end of this tube bears a striking resemblance to a minnow. When a fish takes the bait, the tube shatters and releases the larvae—called glochidia—into the stream. A few are able to attach themselves to the gills of the duped fish, where they absorb nutrients from the host and continue their development. After a week or two the mussel larvae drop off their mobile incubator, settling to a new home on the stream bottom. Found only in rivers and creeks in the Mobile River basin of Alabama, populations of the orangenacre mucket have declined precipi- tously, and the mussel is now federally listed as endangered. The orangenacre

An orangenacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis) extends a minnow-like “lure” to attract potential fish hosts for its larvae.

3 mucket’s reproductive strategy illustrates the complex web of interactions and interdependencies within freshwater ecosystems. Mussel and fish are linked, and both require suitable conditions for survival: the right water flow, clarity, temperature, oxygen levels, and substrate. Unfortunately, the odds are now against a young mussel settling into such suitable habitat. Despite these intricate dependencies—or perhaps because of them—an astounding array of mussels, fishes, and other organisms has evolved to populate the fresh waters of our country. Indeed, the United States stands out as a global center of freshwater biodiversity.

Fresh Waters Run Rich

Rivers and lakes cover less than 1 percent of the Earth’s surface; by volume these fresh waters amount to just 0.01 percent of the world’s total water. The remainder is marine (97.5 percent), permanently frozen, or in aquifers beneath the ground surface.2 Despite their slight significance in surface area and volume, rivers and lakes harbor at least 12 percent of the world’s known animal species, including 41 percent (8,400 species) of all known fishes.3 Considering the rate at which scientists are discovering previously unknown species, freshwater fishes may actually constitute more than half of all vertebrate species on Earth.2 This diversity of freshwater life is not randomly distributed around the globe. The tropics, especially rainforests, are widely recognized as centers of species diversity. Few people realize, however, that the United States is a world center of freshwater species diversity (Table 1). Although

Table 1. Global Significance of U.S. Freshwater Species

The United States harbors an impressive diversity of freshwater species in comparison with most other countries. For several groups of organisms the United States ranks first in the number of known species.

Number of Percentage of U.S. Ranking Number of Described Known Species Worldwide Described Species Worldwide in Species Taxonomic Group U.S. Species Worldwide Found in U.S. Diversity

Fishes 801 8,400 10 7 Crayfishes 322 525 61 1 Freshwater Mussels 300 1,000 30 1 Freshwater Snails 600 4,000 15 1 Stoneflies 600 1,550 40 1 Mayflies 590 2,000 30 1 Caddisflies 1,400 10,564 13 1 Dragonflies & Damselflies 452 5,756 8 uncertain Stygobites 327 2,000 16 1 Note: Numbers are rounded for some groups. Sources: 4-19

4 most of the world’s freshwater fish species are tropical, the United States, Blair Nikula © with 801 species, ranks seventh among countries in the world in recorded fish species—after Brazil, Venezuela, Indone- sia, China, Zaire, and Peru.4,5 In contrast, only 193 freshwater fish species are known from all the countries of Europe and 188 species from the continent of Australia.6 Freshwater invertebrates are in general less well studied than fishes, although groups such as mollusks, crayfishes, and some aquatic insects

Found in clear, cold high-quality northeastern streams, the are sufficiently well known to allow for vulnerable brook snaketail dragonfly (Ophiogomphus aspersus) meaningful global comparisons. These is among the more than 80 U.S. dragonfly and damselfly species at risk due to habitat loss or degradation. invertebrates also reveal the extraordinary diversity of America’s fresh waters. The United States is home to three-fifths of the world’s known crayfishes, 96 percent of which occur no place else.7,8 Almost one-third (approximately 300 species) of all known freshwater mussels occur in the United States.7,9 By comparison, China has only 38 known mussel species, India has 54, and the rivers of Europe and Africa have only 10 and 56 species, respectively.10 The United States is also comparatively rich in freshwater snails and in an unusual assemblage of freshwater invertebrates called stygobites, which are restricted to life underground.11-15 Although freshwater insects are less well known worldwide, again the United States ranks first among countries in described species for three relatively well-studied groups: stoneflies, mayflies, and caddisflies.7,16-20

5 Imperiled Assets: Freshwater Species at Risk

The most grievous assault on the Earth’s environment is the destruction of species, both plant and animal. It is the destruction of life itself; life which has evolved over hundreds of millions of years into a diversity of forms that stagger the imagination; life of a beauty and complexity that fill one with awe and wonder. Russell Train, former Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990

s a whole, organisms that depend on freshwater ecosystems are in grave condition. The 1997 Species Report Card,21 released by The Nature Conservancy in cooperation with theA state Natural Heritage Network (see box, page 9), found that: 67 percent of U.S. freshwater mussels are vulnerable to extinction or are already extinct; more than 1 in 10 mussels may have become extinct during this century alone. 303 fish species—37 percent of the U.S. freshwater fish fauna—are at risk of extinction; 17 species have already gone extinct, mostly in this century. 51 percent of U.S. crayfishes are imperiled or vulnerable. 40 percent of amphibians are imperiled or vulnerable. At least 106 major populations of salmon and steelhead trout on the West Coast have been extirpated, and an additional 214 salmon, steelhead trout, and sea-run cutthroat trout stocks are at risk of extinction.22 Freshwater species as a whole are much more imperiled than terrestrial species. An assessment of the proportion of imperiled and vulnerable species in different groups of organisms in the United States (Figure 1) reveals that the most imperiled groups are those that consist entirely or primarily of freshwater species. Startling as these findings are, they are consistent with other recent assessments of the deteri- orating condition of freshwater species and ecosystems in the United States.2,6,23-29 Although extinction is a natural process, scientists report that current extinction rates are on the order of 1,000 times normal rates.30,31 Reflecting the severity of the situation, more than 300 freshwater species are listed or proposed for listing under the U.S. Endangered Species Act. Moreover, scientists report that under existing and often worsening habitat conditions, conservation efforts for most federally listed or can- didate aquatic species are inadequate to prevent continuing declines in abundance, distribution, and other measures of viability.

6 Figure 1. Proportion of U.S. Species at Risk

The species groups that are proportionately the most imperiled—mussels, crayfishes, and amphibians— consist entirely or primarily of freshwater species. (Source: 1997 Species Report Card 21)

Freshwater Mussels

Crayfishes

Amphibians

Freshwater Fishes

Flowering Plants

Conifers

Ferns

Tiger Beetles Vulnerable (G3)

Dragonflies/Damselflies Imperiled (G2)

Reptiles Critically Imperiled (G1) Butterflies/Skippers Presumed/Possibly Extinct (GX/GH) Mammals

Birds

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

SPECIES CONSERVATION STATUS

Conservation status is assessed by GX PRESUMED EXTINCT The Nature Conservancy and Natural not located despite intensive searches Heritage Network using a 1 to 5 ranking system, ranging from critically GH POSSIBLY EXTINCT imperiled (G1) to demonstrably secure of historical occurrence; still some hope of rediscovery 32 (G5). Species known to be extinct, or G1 CRITICALLY IMPERILED missing and possibly extinct, also are typically 5 or fewer occurrences or 1,000 or fewer individuals recorded. In general, species classified as vulnerable (G3) or rarer may be G2 IMPERILED considered to be “at risk.” typically 6 to 20 occurrences or 1,000 to 3,000 individuals “G” refers to global or rangewide sta- G3 VULNERABLE tus. National (N) and state (S) status rare; typically 21 to 100 occurrences or 3,000 to 10,000 individuals ranks also are assessed. G4 APPARENTLY SECURE The terms “endangered” and “threat- uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern; usually more than 100 ened” are legal designations referring occurrences and 10,000 individuals to species listed under the U.S. Endan- gered Species Act and subject to its G5 SECURE provisions. common; widespread and abundant

7 Where Is the Problem?

To answer this question, we can look at many geographic scales. From a political and administrative perspective, it is useful to view state distributions of at-risk freshwater species. An analysis of distributions by large watersheds, or regions, gives a more natural perspective of species concentrations. But focusing on smaller watershed areas is crucial for taking conservation action, because this is the scale at which many threats to water quality, ecosystem integrity, and species survival must be addressed. This first national analysis of at-risk species distributions not only focuses on the practical watershed scale, but also suggests a set of key watersheds that collectively encompass all at-risk fish and mussel species in the continental United States.

State of the States

The diversity of freshwater species in different states and the serious threats confronting their habitats are reflected in the map depicted below (Figure 2). States with the greatest number of freshwater fish species at risk are concentrated largely in the southeastern United States; the arid western states, however, have the highest proportion of extinct, imperiled, and vulnerable fishes. Five states—California, Texas, Nevada, Ten- nessee, and Alabama—each have at least 14 fish species that are endemic—found nowhere else in the world.

Figure 2. State Distribution of At-Risk Freshwater Fishes

Southeastern states have the greatest numbers of imperiled and vulnerable species, while states in the arid West have fewer species but lead in the percentage of their fish species that are at risk. (Figures are for full species only and do not include subspecies or distinct populations.)

2 (4%) 3 3 5 (4%) (6%) (10%) 4 6 3 (7%) (7%) (6%) 16 8 13 (24%) (6%) 7 (8%) 2 9 4 (5%) (5%) (22%) (4%) 8 8 (6%) 13 2 (14%) 3 8 (8%) (4%) (5%) 5 (6%) 12 3 28 (8%) (52%) (6%) 15 16 (5%) (8%) (9%) 16 41 18 5 28 (58%) 9 (11%) (20%) 3 21 30 (3%) (5%) (42%) (20%) 10 (13%) (8%) (11%) 39 66 (18%) 15 (23%) 15 24 25 (9%) 30 (13%) (63%) (15%) (30%) 51 17 61 (19%) (8%) (21%) 39 (21%) 12 (7%) 19 (13%) Number of Freshwater Fish 0 (0%) Species at Risk 4 0 - 1 14 - 17 (67%) 2 - 9 18 - 30 10 - 13 31 - 66

8 A NATURAL PARTNERSHIP

Rivers of Life draws on the scientific work of the management. To assist in land-use planning, Natural Heritage Network, a unique institutional environmental review, and targeting of conser- collaboration devoted to collecting, managing, vation efforts, the individual natural heritage data and sharing information about species and eco- centers maintain detailed maps and computer systems at risk. More than 500 participating sci- records for locations of the most imperiled entists, along with collaborating biologists from species in their state. other institutions, share the task of evaluating the The Association for Biodiversity Information conservation status of species and documenting and The Nature Conservancy work together to their distribution. provide support to the Natural Heritage Network. Operating in all 50 U.S. states, Canada, (See page 66 for addresses of participating state Latin America, and the Caribbean, individual heri- agencies and programs, or visit their Internet home tage data centers typically are part of state agen- pages at http://www.heritage.tnc.org/.) cies charged with natural resource or wildlife

A Regional Perspective

Species ranges do not respect state lines. Freshwater species are distributed based on hydrology, especially watershed boundaries, and the local geologic and climatic forces that shape the landscape. Reflecting hydrologic factors, the United States can be divided into large freshwater regions * where significantly different aquatic assemblages occur, as shown in Figure 3. These regions consist of large or multiple river basins and provide a more natural picture of the most biologically diverse regions of the United States.33 Although at-risk freshwater species are distributed throughout the United States, two particular regions include 35 percent of all vulnerable and imperiled fish and mussel species (161 of 465 species): the Tennessee-Cumberland River basins (including Tennessee and parts of six other states) and the Mobile River basin (including most of Alabama, parts of Georgia and Mississippi, and a bit of Tennessee). Seventy percent (113) of these at-risk species occur nowhere else in the world; they are endemic or restricted to one of these two regions. These basins are also rich in other freshwater species, including snails and turtles.34 The Interior Highlands region (located in Arkansas, southern Missouri, southwestern Oklahoma, and northeastern Texas) has the next-highest count of fish and mussel species at risk, with 54 species. All U.S. freshwater regions and their numbers of at-risk fish and mussel species are listed in Appendix A. The extraordinary diversity of southeastern U.S. rivers results from the coincidence of a diverse physical geography, favorable climate, and a long but dynamic history. The numerous streams of the southeastern United States flow across geologically and topographically diverse landforms. This varied landscape was spared the repeated habitat-crushing advances of continental ice sheets during

* The U.S. Forest Service classifies freshwater ecological units in a seven-level hierarchy: subzones, regions, subregions, river basins, subbasins, watersheds, and subwatersheds.33 In this report, we use the more generic term “region” to refer to a subregion and the more generic term “watershed” to refer to a subbasin, which is the same as the U.S. Geological Survey’s eight-digit Hydrologic Cataloging Unit. In the contiguous United States, there are all or parts of 48 subregions and 2,111 subbasins. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency uses the subbasin, or eight-digit Hydrologic Cataloging Unit, for its “Index of Watershed Indicators.”

9 the Pleistocene era, allowing living things to persist and evolve over time. Patterns of evolution were affected by the changes in climate, stream drainage patterns, and coastline position that accompanied glacial movements in the North. These changes isolated many populations, enabling them to diverge genetically and evolve into new species.

On Salmon and Subspecies

The preceding analysis reflects the status of full taxonomic species, which are particularly important to conservation of biodiversity from a genetic perspective. However, within-species genetic diversity is also crucial to preserve, and is represented at the subspecies and population levels. For example, 14 fish species are found only in Nevada; however, an additional 39 fish subspecies exist only within that state’s borders.35 The conservation importance of within-species diversity has been recognized under the U.S. Endangered Species Act, which allows for the listing of subspecies and distinct populations as endangered or threatened. Population-level genetic variability is perhaps best known in anadromous fishes such as salmon and sea-run trout. Because of their economic and ecological importance, salmonids are the most studied and intensively managed freshwater organisms in the United States. These wide-ranging

Figure 3. Regional Concentrations of At-Risk Fish and Mussel Species

The number of at-risk fish and mussel species by freshwater regions in the United States. The Tennessee- Cumberland and Mobile River basins in the Southeast have extraordinarily diverse assemblages of freshwater animal species, many of which are imperiled or vulnerable.

Number of Species by Region 25 - 49 1 - 9 50 - 99 10 - 24 100 - 104

10 animals spawn in specific watersheds where they return to breed after spending a number of years maturing in the ocean. Possessing remarkable sensory homing abilities, they usually return at a specific season to the river where they hatched. Each of these populations—called “runs” or “stocks”— contains unique genetic diversity because of limited breeding with other stocks and adaptations to local environmental conditions. The loss of a stock results in an irreplaceable loss of genetic diversity for the species as a whole. When salmon species are viewed at the level of individual stocks, two parts of the country emerge as areas with many imperiled groups at the subspecies or population level (Figure 4). In the Pacific Northwest, at least 106 major populations of salmon and steelhead trout have already been extirpated. In California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington, 214 salmon and steelhead stocks are at risk of extinction, representing seven species: chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), coho salmon (Oncorhynchus kisutch), sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka), chum salmon (Oncorhynchus keta), pink salmon (Oncorhynchus gorbuscha), steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), and sea-run cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki).22 In New England waters another species, the Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), has four stocks that are at risk. As important as salmon are to the economy and ecology of the nation, the remainder of this report focuses on the less-recognized but even larger number of other freshwater species whose future is in question.

Figure 4. Regional Concentrations of At-Risk Salmon Stocks

Although full species of imperiled freshwater fishes and mussels are concentrated in the Southeast, salmonid stocks at risk are clustered in the Pacific Northwest and New England (number indicates at-risk salmon, steelhead, and sea-run cutthroat stocks by region).

41 6 4 78 83

11 Charlie Ott, TNC ©

Sockeye salmon (Oncorhynchus nerka) spawn in small, clear streams from Alaska to California. Twenty-nine stocks of sockeye are considered extinct and an additional 70 sockeye stocks are at risk in the Pacific Northwest (parts of four U.S. states plus British Columbia and the Yukon). This is primarily due to the estimated loss of 96 percent of their habitat in the Columbia River basin.22,36

Threats to Freshwater Species and Systems

Because rivers integrate everything in their landscapes, the living organisms found in rivers tell us about the status and quality of their watersheds. Unfortunately, the story told in North America’s rivers today is one of damaged landscapes and the historical tendency to undervalue our rivers.37 James R. Karr, professor, University of Washington, 1997

Although the Southeast and West stand out as epicenters of endangerment, as noted previously, freshwater organisms are under stress throughout the United States. Among the many significant threats to freshwater species and their habitats, three stand out nationwide:38 Nonpoint source pollution comes from diffuse sources and is usually carried in rainwater and snowmelt to surface and subsurface waters. This pollution often includes a variety of chemical and nutrient contaminants that degrade water quality. Of special concern are the sediments from uncontrolled soil erosion, which can smother stream bottoms and render them unsuitable for many aquatic creatures. Agriculture, some forestry activities, urban and suburban development, and highway construction all contribute to erosion. Non-native species, accidentally or purposely introduced into aquatic systems, interfere with native species by competing with them for limited resources and by directly preying upon them.

12 Dams and their associated operations seriously alter the flow, temperature, and nutrient content of waterways. The impounded water upstream and the altered downstream flows physically change stream channels, while the dam itself poses a barrier to species dispersal. The downstream and upstream effects of a single dam can alter the character of an entire watershed. In the United States, some 75,000 dams larger than six feet and 2.5 million smaller dams have widespread and pervasive effects on freshwater life.39,40 Only 42 free-flowing rivers longer than 125 miles remain in the United States—less than 2 percent of the country’s 3.1 million miles of rivers and streams.3,41 Human disturbance of freshwater systems can have devastating and unexpected costs. Nutrient enrichment of stream systems has catalyzed toxic outbreaks of Pfiesteria piscicida, a microscopic aquatic organism linked to fish kills numbering in the hundreds of thousands. First discovered in 1988, this one-celled species enters the deadly phase of its life cycle when it is stimulated by fish waste or nutrient enrichment of water bodies—through infusions of fertilizer, sewage, or livestock waste. Pfiesteria not only kills fishes but harms human health: People exposed to Pfiesteria-filled waters experience memory loss, impaired cognitive function, and skin lesions. In the wake of Pfiesteria fish kills and resulting public alarm, state authorities in North Carolina and Maryland closed rivers to human use, harming the regions’ fishery and tourism industries.42

NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION

The Clean Water Act has been more effective in while reducing farmers’ investments in chemical controlling “end of pipe” (point source) industrial additives. and municipal discharges than the diffuse, Urban and residential areas not only nonpoint sources of sediments and pollution that contribute nonpoint source pollutants but alter are now the greatest cause of degraded water natural water flows within watersheds by increas- quality. ing the percentage of roads, driveways, park- Agricultural lands are critical for protection ing lots, and other impermeable ground surfaces. of water quality and streamlife because fields Pollution in residential areas is caused by failing and pastures can deliver vast quantities of sedi- septic systems, septic system additives, improper ments, chemicals, and nutrients to receiving disposal of household chemicals, stormwater waters. The President’s Council on Environmen- runoff, construction activities, and inappropriate tal Quality reports total soil erosion losses at 2.1 use of fertilizers and pesticides. More than 30 billion tons nationwide, or 5.6 tons per acre per studies have found that stream systems become year. Approximately 65 percent of the sediment significantly degraded when 10 to 12 percent washed into U.S. streams, rivers, and lakes comes of the watershed is made impermeable.44 For from cropland, pastures, and rangeland.43 example, in one study, trout were lost when Often bound to this eroded sediment is phos- watershed impermeability reached 12 percent.45 phorus, the nutrient primarily responsible for Stormwater runoff from impermeable surfaces eutrophication in freshwater systems. Eutrophica- carries large amounts of sediment, heavy metals, tion can cause “blooms” of algae that virtually oil, and oxygen-demanding organic matter. kill lakes and clog freshwater supply intakes. Moreover, an increase in impermeable surfaces Well-tested and readily available management increases the intensity of stormwater runoff, practices can greatly limit losses of valuable hastening the erosion of streambanks and further topsoil and nutrients from agricultural areas degrading stream systems.

13 Brian Richter, TNC Brian Richter, ©

Taylor Draw Dam on the White River in Colorado is among the 26 major dams built in the upper Colorado River system. These dams have seriously altered the natural habitat of the region’s native fishes, including endangered species such as the Colorado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius) and razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus).

Valuing Our Fresh Waters

Human survival has always been dependent on our ability to recognize, understand, and utilize biological diversity. However much we learn to manipulate our environment, we cannot escape our dependency on biodiversity for food, medicines, and materials or for the ecological services provided by healthy, diverse ecosystems.46 Stephen Blackmore, Keeper of Botany, The Natural History Museum, London, 1996

Clean water is essential to life. Both humans and all the other animals profiled in this report depend on an adequate supply of clean water. Stream-dwelling insects, mollusks, and crustaceans are indicators of environmental quality. Like the fishes that have succumbed to Pfiesteria outbreaks, these species provide warning signs of problems with water quality and ecosystem stability when their numbers drop. Many state agencies monitor fishes and aquatic insects not only to assess the condition of freshwater habitats but to evaluate water quality for decisions about water supply and land management.47 Freshwater habitats provide for many of our fundamental needs: water for drinking and irrigation; food in the form of fishes and waterfowl; and in-stream services such as flood control, transportation, recreation, and water quality protection. Healthy river systems and wetlands retain water and

14 buffer the effects of storms, reducing the loss of life and property to floods. Naturally vegetated streamside riparian zones help trap sediments and break down nonpoint source pollutants. And, rivers, lakes, streams, and wetlands have long inspired artists and musicians, enriching the human spirit with their beauty. Freshwater species offer a wealth of goods and services. Aquatic filter-feeding animals like mussels remove nutrients and toxic substances from water, keeping it cleaner for drinking and recreation. Fishes are an integral part of aquatic food webs, intricately linked to ecosystem health. Around the world, some 950 million people rely on fishes as their primary source of protein. In 1990, the total harvest of freshwater fish worldwide was valued at $8.2 billion. Surprisingly, the value of the freshwater sport fishery in the United States alone is twice that of the global commercial harvest, with direct expenditures in 1991 totaling approximately $16 billion.48,49 The total global value of fishes, mollusks, crustaceans, waterfowl, and other goods extracted from freshwater systems is estimated at more than $100 billion per year, and may be several times that amount.50,51 Aside from food and income value, people also care about the very survival of rare and endangered fish species. Economic valuation studies show that people are willing to pay up to $60 per household per year to ensure that imperiled species continue to exist.52 Still-undiscovered genetic and chemical resources of aquatic species hold potential value for medical, agricultural, and industrial applications. Fishes are frequently used as experimental models ©

for studies in neurobiology, developmental Harold E. Malde biology, endocrinology, aquatic toxicology and carcinogenesis, and biochemical and genetic adaptation.53 Certain chemicals found in freshwater species have been worth millions of dollars to the companies that identified their pharmaceutical uses, but their value is immea- surable to the people who benefit from these biomedical advances. To gain from the store- house of information that remains hidden in freshwater species, we must preserve them and their natural habitats. Perhaps most important, rivers are “crucibles of evolution.”54 Freshwater species are the product of millions of years of evolution, and we have an obligation to them, to ourselves, and to our descendants to ensure that they do not go the way of the Snake River sucker, the silver trout, the Tennessee riffle- shell, and the other aquatic species once found Native bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus) can be found in in the United States that live no more. Idaho’s Snake River, a popular sportfishing destination.

15 Challenges of Aquatic Conservation

To protect your rivers, protect your mountains. Emperor Yu of China, 1600 B.C.E.

Protecting streamlife is a complicated business. Because water flows downhill, freshwater species are affected by activities taking place anywhere upstream or uphill in the watershed, even many miles away. Conservation actions must therefore address threats to water quantity and quality over large areas that are upstream from imperiled species and habitats. Human activities in watersheds can pose a host of threats to freshwater species. Yet, it is often difficult to pinpoint the stresses on streams, species, and habitats. Even when these stresses are correctly identified, the sources of water quality and quantity problems can be difficult to control. Too often human activities within the watershed are incompatible with conservation objectives for freshwater species and habitats. To protect freshwater species and systems, we will need to counter the threats that jeopardize their survival. We will need to prevent pollution and invasion by non-native species. We will also need to maintain the integrity of these systems by restoring ecological processes. Particularly important to sustaining biodiversity and the health of freshwater systems is retaining or restoring the natural variability in stream flows: timing, duration,

Hope for the Future

Watersheds are a logical landscape unit for focusing freshwater conservation efforts.6,29,57 The small watershed areas highlighted in the following section of this report offer hope for the future of the nation’s imperiled streamlife. Despite decades of abuse, the United States still has places that harbor incredibly diverse assemblages of freshwater species, many of them found nowhere else. These critical watersheds for conservation—“hot spots” of globally imperiled and vulnerable species—should be targeted by all who have a stake in our freshwater heritage: local citizens; local watershed groups; local, state, and national governments; private corporations; and conservation organizations.

16 © Harold E. Malde

The Santa Margarita River flows through the Camp Pendleton Marine Base and the rapidly urbanizing landscape of Southern California, making protection of its aquatic species a complex and challenging endeavor.

17 Critical Watersheds for Conservation

Setting Conservation Priorities

The precarious state of freshwater organisms across the country makes clear the need for concerted efforts to protect our rich and globally significant aquatic heritage. The scale of this need, however, far outstrips the resources currently available for this task. Setting priorities for freshwater conservation activities thus becomes an important step in effectively designing and carrying out protection strategies at national as well as local levels. The Nature Conservancy has adopted an ecoregion-based approach to setting priorities and protecting biological diversity.58 This involves identifying priority conservation sites within each of the nation’s ecological regions, or ecoregions. Ecoregions are large geographically defined areas, each with particular environmental conditions, such as climate and geology, that support distinctive group- ings of species and ecological communities.59,60 Priority sites within ecoregions generally are those that reflect the best examples of characteristic ecological communities, or that encompass species and communities that are rare or otherwise at risk of disappearing. Protecting a well-designed suite of priority sites can help ensure the conservation of the ecoregion’s entire complement of species, along with the genetic variability that is critical for these species’ long-term survival.61 Because conservationists are only just beginning to identify and classify aquatic communities consistently,62 freshwater conservation priorities must still largely be defined based on species-level information. There are several species-oriented approaches to selecting sets of areas where conservation would most efficiently protect biological diversity. One strategy is to identify hot spots, areas with the greatest total diversity of species or, preferably, the greatest number of species at risk.63-65 Another approach combines additional criteria to ensure that all target species are represented in the selected portfolio. In identifying the following critical watersheds for conservation, we employ both of these strategies.

Hot Spots for Freshwater Species at Risk

Of the more than 2,000 small watershed areas found across the continental United States, about 1,300 support one or more fish or mussel species at risk. In turn, 87 of these stand out as hot spots, harboring 10 or more imperiled species (Figure 5). These hot spots of aquatic diversity are largely concentrated in the Southeast: four river basins alone, the Tennessee, Ohio, Cumberland, and Mobile, contain 18 of the top 19 watersheds. The upper Clinch River on the Virginia-Tennessee border surpasses all other small watershed areas in the country, with 48 imperiled and vulnerable fish

18 Number of At-Risk Species by Watershed 1 10 - 14 2 - 3 15 - 23 4 - 9 24 - 50

Figure 5. Hot Spots for At-Risk Fish and Mussel Species

Watersheds with 10 or more at-risk fish and mussel species are concentrated in the Southeast, reflecting the extraordinary species diversity of rivers and streams in this region.

HOT SPOTS ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

This hot spots analysis is based on precise loca- Because of its distance from North America, tion data collected by the Natural Heritage Net- Hawaii was also excluded from the analy- work for 307 vulnerable or imperiled fish spe- sis,although its islands are home to four vulner- cies and 158 mussel species. These data were able freshwater fishes, each occurring on five supplemented with information from the scientific islands: Hawaii, Maui, Molokai, Oahu, and literature. Kauai. Using geographic information system (GIS) Only full species and not subspecies, popu- computer mapping technology, analysts assigned lations, or stocks were included in this analysis. fish and mussel species to the small watershed Other freshwater species groups (such as snails, areas or subbasins (U.S. Geological Survey crayfishes, or aquatic insects) were not included eight-digit Hydrologic Cataloging Units) where because location information on these species is they are known to occur. Experts in all states not as well developed as the information on fish reviewed the data to refine the small watershed and mussel species. Including these species would area distributions of imperiled and vulnerable fish have biased the results to areas with more com- and mussel species. plete inventory data rather than to indicate areas Alaska was excluded from the analysis that are actually home to the highest numbers of because it has no freshwater fish or mussel spe- species at risk. cies that are currently considered to be at risk.

19 Harold E. Malde ©

Conservationists, farmers, and state and federal agencies are working together to restore and maintain critical streamside corridors along Ohio’s Big and Little Darby Creeks, a refuge for 103 fish and 38 mussel species.

and mussel species—including 21 that are federally listed as endangered or threatened. Three of the top eight rivers—the upper Clinch, the upper Green (Kentucky), and the Conasauga (Tennessee- Georgia)—are profiled later in this report. Appendix B lists the 87 small watershed hot spots with 10 or more species at risk. For hot spots to be useful in defining conservation priorities, they must be defined at the right scale. For many species, the small watershed unit used in this analysis is the appropriate scale. In certain circumstances, however, conservation activities may be effectively employed on a larger scale (for example, in several adjacent watershed areas) or a smaller scale (such as in a small headwater stream or a single spring within the watershed), depending on the nature of the threats and the species of concern. Looking beyond small watershed boundaries is also essential when vulnerable streamlife regularly moves between drainages, such as sturgeons, squawfishes, and anadromous fishes like salmon and shad. On the other hand, viable populations of at-risk fish and mussel species may be found only in a small portion of the watershed, not its entire area. And threats to the continued existence of at- risk species may only be manageable in a small area of the subbasin. Some threats may require attention upstream, such as the effects of large dams and water withdrawals, while other threats may (surprisingly) require abatement downstream, such as dams that block fish passage, or channelization and gravel extraction that can cause destructive upstream-progressing river channel erosion.66

20 An Aquatic Portfolio: Critical Watersheds for Conservation

While the watershed hot spots highlighted in the previous section harbor the greatest diversity of imperiled species, some at-risk fish and mussel species exist only outside of these areas. Conservation strategies based solely on hot spots would leave these species out in the cold. An extension of this hot spots approach is thus needed that identifies a suite of watersheds that comprehensively could protect these imperiled organisms. The following analysis of critical watersheds for conservation suggests that a relatively small number of watershed areas could conserve much of the nation’s rich aquatic diversity. Protection of the 327 small watershed areas displayed below (Figure 6) would conserve populations of all known imperiled and vulnerable fish and mussel species in the United States—and thereby a significant portion of the world’s freshwater biodiversity. Representing only 15 percent of the total number of watersheds in the continental United States, this portfolio includes one or more watersheds in each U.S. ecoregion (see box, page 22). Watersheds and ecoregions can be used in a complementary way for resource management;60 by incorporating ecoregional representation into this watershed-based analysis, the portfolio should reflect a significant portion of the nation’s freshwater genetic and ecological variability. And while designed around fishes and mussels, conservation activities in these watersheds would also benefit the many other aquatic and terrestrial co-inhabitants of these ecosystems.

Figure 6. Critical Watersheds to Conserve Fish and Mussel Species

Protecting and restoring 327 watersheds—15 percent of the total—would conserve populations of all at-risk freshwater fish and mussel species in the United States.

21 WATERSHED SELECTION PROCESS

The small watersheds highlighted in Figure 6 were fashion. Within each of the 63 ecoregions cur- selected on the basis of a rarity-weighted rich- rently recognized by The Nature Conservancy,61 ness index (RWRI) for each eight-digit hydrologic which are a refinement of ecoregions originally unit (subbasin).67 The index is developed by giv- developed by the U.S. Forest Service59, the ing each species a score that is calculated as 1 subbasin with the highest index value was select- divided by the number of subbasins in which the ed. Additional subbasins were then added in > species currently occurs (hi). If a species is now nationally where indices were 1.5 or where G1- found in only one subbasin, the species gets a G3 fish and mussel diversity was >14 species. score of 1/1, or 1.0; if a species currently oc- Then, subbasins that have at least two G1-G3 curs in 20 subbasins, it receives a score of 1/ fish or mussel species and that are already known 20, or 0.05. The individual species scores are to be the focus of conservation efforts aimed at then summed for the component G1-G3 fish and some of the component fresh-water species were mussel species in each subbasin to yield a rarity- added. Additional subbasins were then added to weighted index for the subbasin. (The mathemati- ensure that all 465 G1-G3 fish and mussel spe- cal equation for this index is as follows: cies were captured at least twice (with the excep- n RWRI = ;i=1 1/hi tion of species restricted to a single subbasin, where n = the number of species found within a which were necessarily captured only once). subbasin. In the case of a subbasin with one Finally, conservation practitioners and scientists endemic species and one species occurring in reviewed the subbasins selected to eliminate those 19 other subbasins, the RWRI=1.05. This score with known non-viable populations or insurmount- may be thought of as an index of irreplaceability able threats. The resulting 327 subbasins consti- of the subbasin.) tute 15 percent of the 2,111 subbasins or small Watersheds were selected in a stepwise watershed areas in the lower 48 states. Harold E. Malde ©

The Mimbres River of New Mexico, a critical watershed to conserve at-risk fish and mussel species, provides habitat to the Chihuahua chub (Gila negrescens).

22 This set of watersheds is not a definitive list to protect all freshwater biodiversity, but it does provide a starting point for conservation action. Although the analysis is based on the best currently available scientific information, it represents only the species groups for which complete information is available. Such analyses should be repeated in the future as more is learned about other freshwater groups (such as crayfishes, snails, and aquatic insects), subspecies or stocks (such as salmon or cut- throats), and newly recognized species (for instance, more than 100 new U.S. freshwater fishes have been identified in the past quarter century). In some parts of the country, information may be available that will point to additional watersheds (beyond this set of 327) that are critical to the survival of imperiled streamlife other than fish and mussel species. For example, the Wood-Pawtucket watershed in Rhode Island has no fish or mussel species at risk, but is home to 8 species of globally imperiled and vulnerable dragonflies and damselflies.68 Simi- larly, Eagle Lake in California has no fish or mussel species at risk but is home to genetically distinct populations of rainbow trout and tui-chub, as well as a number of endemic snail species.69 Conserving the 327 watersheds represented in Figure 6 will protect at least two populations of nearly all at-risk fishes and mussels, but ultimately this may not be enough to ensure the long-term survival of those species. Species require the protection of multiple populations to achieve that objec- tive. Looking beyond a species perspective, even watersheds and streams without imperiled species deserve the best possible care and stewardship that we can give them, because human health and quality of life are tied to their well-being.

23 Rivers of Life: Working to Protect Freshwater Hot Spots

any of the critical watershed areas highlighted in this report are already benefiting from concerted efforts to conserve their imperiled freshwater life. We feature here eight watershedsM included on the preceding list of critical watersheds that currently are the focus of protection efforts. These profiles highlight the many ways individuals, organizations, and agencies are working together to conserve hot spots of freshwater biodiversity, and illustrate the challenges and opportunities inherent in freshwater conservation efforts.

Green

Clinch

Conasauga

Altamaha Verde

Guadalupe Cahaba Kiamichi

24 Jon Golden, TNC ©

Clinch River Virginia and Tennessee

I magine playing a game of environmental “Jeop- mist-shrouded Appalachian Mountains of southwestern ardy!” The category is rare species. Answer: This unsung Virginia and northeastern Tennessee. Here, streams me- region has the highest number of globally imperiled and ander amid ridges and valleys to form the upper Clinch vulnerable freshwater species in the United States. and Powell rivers, the only undammed and ecologically Question: What is the Clinch River watershed? With its intact headwaters of the Tennessee River system. The 29 rare mussel species and 19 rare fish species, the Clinch region’s limestone bedrock is honeycombed by some River above Tennessee’s Norris Reservoir is home to a 1,250 caves and uncounted underground springs and remarkable level of aquatic diversity. In fact, the Clinch streams. In addition to the diversity in the rivers, this mostly and Powell rivers harbor a collection of freshwater mus- unexplored world is filled with a menagerie of rare beetles, sels unmatched anywhere in the world. These unglam- isopods, and other insects—creatures just as dependent orous animals are known by vividly descriptive common on good water quality as are mussels and fishes. In all, 28 names: spectaclecase, Tennessee species found in the Clinch and heelsplitter, Appalachian monkey- Powell valleys are federally listed as face, snuffbox. threatened or endangered. The nation’s leading hot spot Unfortunately for these fasci- of aquatic diversity is found in one nating creatures, their survival of the most unlikely places: the prospects resemble a real-life game

25 of jeopardy played out each day. In the past century, the Farmers always show a knack for getting things done, region has suffered deep ecological losses. Where once and those living along the upper Clinch and Powell rivers there were 60 kinds of freshwater mussels, only about 40 are no exception. Since 1989, dozens of farmers have remain. A history of natural resource exploitation has dam- voluntarily protected creeks and sensitive caves on their aged parts of southwest Virginia’s environment, poison- property to improve local water quality, taking advantage ing stretches of some rivers. Declining water quality—a of government and Nature Conservancy incentive pro- legacy of coal mining and ecologically unsound agricul- grams. In places like Hancock County in Tennessee and tural practices—is the primary threat to the rivers today. Scott County in Virginia, this includes practical solutions To succeed in the Clinch Valley and elsewhere, con- such as streambank fencing, reestablishment of riparian servation must include people. In Russell County, Virginia, buffers, off-stream water sources for cattle, and carefully for example, a citizens’ initiative known as the Russell selected heavy-use areas. The Conservancy provides County Vision Forum is planning for sustainable devel- farmers with guidance and financial assistance. opment to protect the environment and the local way of To succeed, these programs require long-term part- life. The county chamber of commerce, the county board nerships with dozens of groups and agencies, including of supervisors, the Planning District Commission, The county officials, Virginia Tech, the Virginia Department of Nature Conservancy, and the National Association of Conservation and Recreation’s Natural Heritage and Soil Counties jointly sponsor the forum. and Water Conservation programs, the Virginia Depart- Throughout the Clinch Valley, local landowners and ment of Game and Inland Fisheries, the Tennessee Valley other partners are working with public and private conser- Authority, the Tennessee Department of vationists to address the region’s major land-use issues: Agricul- ture, the Tennessee Wildlife forestry, farming, and coal mining. Sixty years Resource Agency, the after the last major timber harvest in the region, second-growth forests are again ready to be harvested. Economic © Kate Spencer pressures will soon lead to more logging. Whereas poor logging practices can pollute streams and degrade Scientists who first described the yellowfin madtom (Noturus flavipinnis) believed the species to be extinct, but this secretive, wildlife habitat, environmentally sound timber harvest- nocturnal fish persists in the Clinch and Powell river system. ing could create a sustainable local industry that protects streams and supports local communities. In response, Clinch-Powell Resource Conservation and Development local entrepreneurs are leading a revival of the traditional Council, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S. craft of low-impact horse-logging. The Conservancy is Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Fish and helping local landowners who are making their once-in- Wildlife Service. a-lifetime timber harvesting decisions by exploring inno- The coal re-mining initiative, a partnership among vative financial mechanisms that will provide incentives the coal industry, state and federal regulatory agencies, for long-term sustainable forestry (such as the develop- and the Conservancy, is tackling the complex issue of ment of a forest bank, described in the following Green abandoned mine lands. In a pilot project on Black Creek, River case study). a coal company is using new technologies to re-mine, clean

26 © Jon Golden, TNC

The Clinch River supports an unrivaled diversity of freshwater mussel species. up, and restore a stream heavily degraded from acid mine Although conservation groups can help protect drainage. The urgency of working with the coal industry rivers by providing resources, information, and expertise, to solve such problems was brought home in 1996 when lasting conservation takes the commitment of people who a coal waste holding pond on a tributary of the Powell live and work there. That commitment is the tie that binds River burst, sending a black plume through 30 miles of the varied conservation efforts on the Clinch and Powell streams and killing at least 11,000 fishes. rivers.

27 © Adam Jones

Green River Kentucky

entucky’s upper Green River is the most bio- The primary land use in the Green River watershed Klogically rich branch remaining of the Ohio River system. is agriculture, yet extensive forests remain in the riparian Although its upper headwaters are impounded, the river zone and in the watershed. Intact forests keep soil where flows unhindered for a 100-mile stretch through eight it should be: on the ground, not in the river. With in- counties and Mammoth Cave National Park, the world’s creased timber harvesting in the Green watershed, the risk largest cave system. This 100-mile reach is where the river’s of land degradation and river siltation rises. This could great aquatic diversity is concentrated. harm water quality and reduce habitat It also stands to benefit from an inno- value for imperiled aquatic species. vative forest management approach that The development of a forest bank would preserve water quality and —a market-based approach to sustain- species diversity by preventing siltation. able forest management—holds great

28 promise for the Green watershed, as well as the Clinch species, including the federally listed endangered Mam- watershed and Big Brushy Creek in Ohio. This newly con- moth Cave shrimp (Palaemonias ganteri), found nowhere ceived conservation tool encourages local landowners else in the world. to turn over their timber rights to a “bank” in exchange The Green’s unique aquatic and subterranean spe- for a steady rate of return on their forest resources. The cies are threatened not only by poor forest management bank places the dedicated forestland under a sustainable practices but by pollution from inadequate industrial and management regime, and then actively markets its “green” residential sewage treatment, siltation from improper harvested wood products. This arrangement ensures that agricultural techniques, and streamflow regulation. as timber is harvested, water quality is maintained. It also Although the Green is still free of the non-native zebra ensures steady income flow for the forest owners who mussel, invasion by this exotic species could be devastat- entrust their land to the bank. ing to the river’s native mussel life. Preventing the inva- Both people and other species will benefit from sion of non-native fish and mussel species is a high prior- efforts to manage forest resources sustainably and in a ity in the Green. manner that maintains water quality in the watershed. The Many partners are working together to minimize Green River boasts 71 mussel species and more than 150 threats to the Green River. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife fish species, including the rare northern cavefish (Ambly- Service has committed to carrying out a stress analysis of opsis spelaea), spotted darter (Etheostoma maculatum), and the watershed, to identify the highest-priority activities to tippecanoe darter (Etheostoma tippecanoe). Twenty-nine of reduce threats to the river. The agency will work with the Green’s mussel

© Megan Grey Rollins and fish species are imperiled or vulnerable, and seven Lampreys, like the Green River’s vulnerable, prehistoric-looking are listed as endangered under the U.S. Endangered mountain brook lamprey (Ichthyomyzon greeleyi), are the only living freshwater representatives of a group evolved from jawless Species Act. The upper Green River is also rich in crayfishes that lived 500 million years ago. fishes, with both the rare cave-dwelling eyeless crayfish (Orconectes pellucidus) and the endemic bottlebrush cray- private landowners to define the best environmentally fish (Barbicambarus cornutus). sound and economically beneficial management practices. Some of the Green’s greatest biological resources are The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is working to regulate not just underwater but underground. Mineral dissolu- streamflow releases from the river’s headwater dam to meet tion of the watershed’s underlying limestone bedrock has both human and wildlife needs. To acquire land in strate- created sinkhole plains, sinking streams, and numerous gic places along the Green, Kentucky’s Department of Fish springs throughout the area. Although this underground and Wildlife Resources and Nature Preserves Commis- wonderland harbors countless species still undiscovered, sion plan to collaborate with The Nature Conservancy. one subterranean gem, Mammoth Cave National Park, has Creative approaches and partnerships like the Green River been well studied. Because of its great size and abundance forest bank will help protect the long-term health of the of small, specialized habitats, the Mammoth Cave system watershed’s aquatic, cave, and terrestrial species and supports one of the world’s richest collections of cave communities.

29 © Beth Maynor Young

Cahaba River Alabama

lmost 50 percent of all documented U.S. species, 131, than any river its size in North America. One Aspecies extinctions since European settlement have of these fish is the Cahaba shiner (Notropis cahabae), one occurred during this century in the Mobile River basin.70 of the few endangered fish species confined to the main- Alabama, through which this vast river system courses, stem of only one river. Although the number of fresh- has the unfortunate distinction of being the most extinc- water mussels and snails has declined sharply from tion-prone state in the continental United States, with 98 historical numbers, many species are still well represented species extinct. Most of Alabama’s many rivers have been in the river, including pearly mussels like the critically impounded for hydropower or dredged for barge trans- imperiled orangenacre mucket (Lampsilis perovalis). port, resulting in the disappearance of many The Cahaba watershed is a treasure trove riverine habitats and species. Within this of botanical life as well. As the river flows landscape of species loss, the Cahaba River southward into rural Bibb County, it shelters remains the state’s longest essentially free- the largest known stand of the imperiled flowing river, and one of its most biologically shoals lily (Hymenocallis coronaria). Celebrated rich. locally as the Cahaba lily, this spectacular The Cahaba River basin supports 69 rare and surprisingly delicate flower grows in the and imperiled species, including 10 fish and middle of the river, wedging its bulbs into mussel species that are listed under the U.S. crevices in the limestone rock. Bibb County Endangered Species Act. It has more fish is also home to a unique terrestrial plant

30 community, the Bibb County glades, mostly found imme- promote river stewardship in the state of Alabama. To safe- diately adjacent to the Little Cahaba River, a major tribu- guard water quality in the Cahaba, the group participates tary. In 1992, botanist Jim Allison counted eight new on a citizen’s advisory committee on stormwater manage- species of plants on limestone outcrops along the Cahaba’s ment. It is also helping to develop a citizen-based, basin- banks—a discovery befitting expeditions to uncharted wide plan for water quality protection, pioneering a new tropical wildernesses. approach for the state environmental management agency. Until recently, the steep-sided Appalachian ridges of The resulting Cahaba River Basin Plan may serve as a model the Cahaba’s headwater tributaries kept streamside devel- for other basin plans throughout the state. opment to a minimum. However, population growth is The Cahaba River Society is also promoting habitat pushing residential and commercial development from conservation and environmental education in the Cahaba Birmingham into the Cahaba River watershed, resulting watershed. It is helping Jefferson County, the source of in increased toxic stormwater runoff, sedimentation, and the Cahaba’s headwaters, to allocate a $30 million com- municipal wastewater discharges. At the same time, mitment to development of greenways. Much of this domestic drinking water withdrawals from the Cahaba money will go to Cahaba River greenways. The Cahaba divert virtually its entire flow during drought periods. River Society is also working with Bibb County, the Although threats in the upper watershed are growing, the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, and The Nature lower half of the watershed, where the Cahaba’s biodi- Conservancy to acquire a piece of land adjacent to the versity is most remarkable, is somewhat healthier. river that will protect several globally significant species. To prevent degradation of this rich biological re- To develop broad-based public support for Cahaba River source, government agencies, conservation groups, and protection, the group was awarded an environmental citizens’ groups are working together to protect the education grant from the Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Cahaba’s rare and endemic aquatic species and natural Toyota Motors Corporate Services of North America. communities. The Cahaba River Society, a nonprofit Through children’s field trips, teacher training, and curri- conservation organization, was cre- culum development about the river, the resulting educa- ated in 1989 to protect the tional initiative, known as the CLEAN program, will work Cahaba and to foster long-term commitment to conservation of the Cahaba and its rich freshwater diversity.

31 © George Ivey, TNC

Conasauga River Tennessee and Georgia

n the steep, forested slopes of the Blue Ridge Moun- the river harbors other rare fishes, including the freckle- Otains in northwest Georgia, the clean, cool waters of the belly madtom (Noturus munitus) and the amber darter Conasauga River descend rapidly through the mountains (Percina antesella). Some of the rarest river inhabitants live toward Tennessee. Crossing the state line, the river pauses quietly at the bottom of the river: a half dozen species of in deep pools, dropping now and then through a number freshwater mussels. These animals, including the endan- of small rapids. gered southern pigtoe (Pleurobema georgianum) and trian- The Conasauga River supports 24 rare and imper- gular kidneyshell (Ptychobranchus greenii), filter the river’s iled aquatic species, including 12 that are federally listed waters for nourishment. There is even fresh evidence that under the U.S. Endangered Species three species of mussels believed to Act. Its clear waters are home to a be extinct may actually be surviving colorful array of rare fishes, includ- in the Conasauga. ing the holiday darter (Etheostoma The Conasauga River supports brevirostrum), the blue shiner (Cypri- more rare species and is in better nella caerulea), and the endangered condition than most of the other riv- Conasauga logperch (Percina jen- ers draining through the Coosa River kinsi). Flowing farther through system of northwestern Georgia and Tennessee and back into Georgia, eastern Alabama into Mobile Bay.

32 Surrounded by extensive wilderness and national forest- government agencies joined together to create the land, the upper third of the river is in almost pristine con- Conasauga River Alliance. This effort began as an eco- dition. No dams block fish movements or disturb the river’s system-based assistance study, which was initiated by the hydrology. Many of the watershed’s farmers and other land- Limestone Valley Resource Conservation and Development owners have managed their land well, and the river’s Council and funded through the Natural Resources Con- native species have benefited from their careful land use. servation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. Local citizens have also benefited from the river’s health: It has since blossomed into a consolidated effort that now It provides them with recreational opportunities, outstand- includes a growing number of local citizens and more than ing fishing, and, most important, water for agricultural, 20 federal and state agencies. residential, and industrial use. Within the alliance, district conservationists with the The Conasauga River is not without problems, how- Natural Resources Conservation Service are working with ever. Siltation threatens to smother the river bottoms where farmers on streambank stabilization and restoration, and endangered fishes feed and mussels live. Excess nutrients local governments and local citizens are organizing river and toxic chemicals may also degrade water quality. To cleanups. Through its many partners, the alliance is also varying degrees, these pollutants come from crop agri- sponsoring field trips to educate people about best culture, cattle, timber harvest practices, poultry operations, management practices for forestry, residential develop- and the assorted effects of residential and industrial ment, and other land uses. Other alliance members are development. developing signs that will be posted to recognize One industry—carpet manufacturing— publicly individuals and companies that and the growth accompanying manage their fields, it pose a particular concern for the Cona- sauga’s distinctive freshwater species. Dalton, Georgia, and other nearby towns © Megan Grey Rollins are reported to pro- duce two-thirds of the country’s wall- to-wall carpets. Many carpet mills rely on the waters of the Conasauga River for The endangered Conasauga logperch (Percina jenkinsi) is restricted production. As the carpet industry prospers, residential to a stretch of river barely 12 miles long. and industrial development may spread farther in the watershed. Without appropriate conservation action, the forests, and industries in a “river-friendly” manner. Conasauga River may become significantly degraded, and Through these and other cooperative efforts, the many of its rare fishes and mussels could be driven to Conasauga River Alliance is taking the first steps to achieve extinction. its vision of maintaining “a clean and beautiful Conasauga To address these concerns about the future of the River—forever.” Conasauga River, local citizens, conservation groups, and

33 © Harold E. Malde

Altamaha River Georgia

N ew technologies can advance conservation in attached to their natural heritage, the Altamaha and its old places where unique species have evolved. In Georgia’s floodplain remain fairly undisturbed. In its entirety, the Altamaha River basin, a geographic information system Altamaha is among the most biologically rich river (GIS)—a computer application used to overlay and systems draining into the Atlantic Ocean. It sustains glo- analyze biological, social, and physical data—is being bally rare natural communities and 11 imperiled and vul- wielded as a powerful tool for conservation planning. Eco- nerable pearly mussel species, 7 of which are found logical inventory and GIS analysis have provided valuable nowhere else in the world. In total, at least 130 species of information to define conservation and rare or endangered plants and animals are management priorities in the lower Alta- found in the Altamaha River watershed. maha watershed. Although the Altamaha is still rela- The Altamaha River drains more tively intact, management practices with- than one-quarter of Georgia’s land sur- in the watershed threaten to reduce face, making it the third-largest river water quality and quantity and cause habi- basin along the Atlantic seaboard. With tat destruction and degradation. Natural limited development, a sparse human communities in the floodplain are being population, and landowners strongly lost to timber production, agriculture, and

34 land development. The introduction of non-native spe- protection. Using GIS software, conservationists overlaid cies like the flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris) and Asiatic the Altamaha’s land-cover maps with data on imperiled clam (Corbicula fluminea) has caused native fish and mus- species occurrences, river hydrology, point sources of sel species to decline. pollution, landownership, and political boundaries. The To protect the river’s biological riches and counter GIS analysis revealed which lands were natural or con- mounting threats, The Nature Conservancy initiated an verted, who owned important areas for conservation and ecological inventory of the lower Altamaha River water- threat abatement, and where conservation and manage- shed in 1991. This inventory was funded by the Wood- ment actions should be focused. ruff Foundation, the Georgia Power Company, the U.S. The Altamaha GIS database is a rich information Fish and Wildlife Service, and the James M. Cox, Jr., Foun- source for local decision makers and dation. Land-cover types were identified and classified landowners. It is being used using aerial and satellite imagery coupled with on-the- to give landowners indi- ground plant, animal, and natural community vidualized data on the surveys. The inventory yielded a biological resources set of 18 landcover maps, on their properties, significantly increasing such as what types of resource managers’ species and natural understanding of the communities are found biological condition © Rebecca Flint on their land, what of lands adjacent their global and state- to the river. The land- The productive estuarine environment where the lower Altamaha River meets wide rarity is, and what scape-scale land-cover the Atlantic Ocean is habitat to the endangered West Indian manatee areas may be impor- (Trichechus manatus) during the summer months. classification meth- tant for protection. odology developed at Supported by the data- the Altamaha became a model for other Conservancy base, the Georgia Department of Natural Resources and efforts around the country. The Nature Conservancy are helping hundreds of local Building upon this analytical work, the U.S. Envi- landowners learn how they can support conservation on ronmental Protection Agency funded the Georgia Depart- their properties using a variety of tools: conservation ment of Natural Resources and the Conservancy’s effort easements, enrollment of their property in the Georgia to carry out the Lower Altamaha River Watershed Demon- Natural Areas Registry, and adoption of beneficial man- stration Project. The goal of this initiative was to develop agement practices, such as leaving vegetation buffers a management plan and conservation strategy for the lower intact around streams. The extensive database is helping Altamaha River watershed. The project also identified the to make protection of the Altamaha more focused, tar- stresses that affect the health of the lower watershed in geted, and efficient—benefiting natural and human order to curb wetland loss and plan for critical area communities alike.

35 Caryn Vaughn ©

Kiamichi River Oklahoma

ne of the rarest mussels in North America occurs in it traverses ecologically distinct regions: mountains, prai- OOklahoma’s Kiamichi River: the Ouachita rock pocketbook rie, and coastal plain. The river originates on the south (Arkansia wheeleri). This animal is the world’s sole repre- slope of Rich Mountain, only a stone’s throw from Arkan- sentative of the genus Arkansia, making it evolutionarily sas. It flows to the west through the Ouachita Mountains, distinctive and a high priority for conservation. The only then south across the Gulf Coastal Plain and Central Plains remaining viable population of Ouachita rock pocketbooks to join the Red River on the Oklahoma-Texas border. The exists in the clean waters of the Kiamichi River, home to Kiamichi is one of the few tributaries of the Red River that another 28 mussel species, including 7 imperiled or vul- has not been significantly influenced by major land-use nerable species and more than half the mussels known changes or water diversion. But that may change soon. from the entire state of Oklahoma. Plans are under consideration Harboring more than 100 native to sell the Kiamichi’s high-quality fish species, the river is also ex- water across state boundaries tremely rich in freshwater insects. to Texas. Burgeoning population The key to the Kiamichi’s growth in the Dallas–Fort Worth biological significance may be that metropolis has heightened water

36 demand in the Lone Star State, creating a willingness to collected information as a tool for education and outreach buy Kiamichi water at above-market value. This decision with local citizens. The agency is also interested in estab- would have ripple effects throughout the Kiamichi water- lishing a volunteer, community-based water quality pro- shed, potentially spurring development that would be gram. This program would equip schools, community detrimental to the diversity of life that inhabits the river. groups, and area residents with water quality test kits— Many people living near the river want to keep their water a means of collecting data and connecting people with in the Kiamichi and oppose the trans-state water sale. the river. At this time, the Kiamichi remains one of the few While the issue of interstate water diversion remains ecologically intact river basins in the region. Only one unresolved, public and private entities are adopting main-stem impoundment exists on the lower river. conservation-friendly management practices to minimize Land ownership in the watershed is largely private, and other threats to the river. With the move toward increased historically these landowners have done a good job of timber extraction and development in the watershed, best protecting the river, through actions like leaving riparian management practices are being adopted to minimize borders around pastures. The narrow watershed is heavily environmental disturbances from streamside construction, forested, and until recently land use was limited primarily forestland management, and other activities. The Natural to forestry and cattle grazing. The river has no protected Resources Conservation Service may support programs status, however, and it also now faces the threats of in the watershed to protect water quality and control potentially poorly managed chicken and hog farm devel- erosion. Many of the Kiamichi conservation efforts will opment, gravel mining, increased timber harvesting, rely on public involvement and cooperative agree- and additional water impoundment. ments with private landowners to pro- State and federal agencies are tect critical areas of the watershed, spearheading efforts to understand addressing both the economic and protect the Kiamichi. They are needs of the local people and the gathering information to assess the long-term viability of the river. status of rare species and environmental conditions in the river The Kiamichi River hosts the world’s sole basin. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife remaining viable population of the Oua- chita rock-pocketbook (Arkansia wheeleri), Service plans to use this newly a federally listed endangered mussel.

37 © J. Fries

Guadalupe River Texas

he Guadalupe River in Texas is a classic example woodland. Except for municipal use from Canyon Lake, Tof contrast. The upper quarter of the river, called the up- this portion of the river has only limited water diversion per and middle segments, cuts through the rocky lime- for small streamside communities, riparian orchards, and stone of the Edwards Plateau and is rich in rare species. nut groves. Conversely, land use in the river’s lower three- Four endemic fishes occur in this reach: the Guadalupe quarters is dominated by pastureland and agricultural bass (Micropterus treculi), the endangered fountain darter cultivation, with more extensive water diversion for crop (Etheostoma fonticola), the greenthroat darter (Etheostoma irrigation. These downstream water uses have helped keep lepidum), and the gray redhorse (Mox- upstream water from being diverted ostoma congestum). The lower three- from the biologically rich upper and quarters of the river roll gently through middle Guadalupe segments. a wide, shallow floodplain to San Hidden beneath the surface of Antonio Bay, harboring only one of the the Edwards Plateau also lives an river’s unique species—the threatened astounding diversity of species—163 Cagle’s map turtle (Graptemys caglei). rare and imperiled animals that exist Most of the watershed surround- only in subterranean caves and waters. ing the upper and middle segments is More than one-third of these species relatively undeveloped rangeland and are aquatic, including two fish and

38 four salamander species. Land- and water-use activities Guadalupe. As in other parts of the country, the Guadalupe that cause pollution or withdraw water from the under- faces human population growth, an attendant rise in ground aquifer could cause a mass extinction of these water demand, and residential and recreational develop- unique and vulnerable animals. ment in the watershed. Increased water demand may lead Fortunately, the large areas of relatively undeveloped to the construction of new in-stream impoundments, land in the watershed, excellent water quality, numerous further disturbing the river’s natural flows. Continued pristine springs, and periodic extremes of flood and clearing of riparian forest for development along the drought have helped maintain the upper and middle expanding I-35 and I-10 highway corridors could alter Guadalupe’s diversity of life. Despite one major surface the river’s water quality and flows. Pollution from muni- impoundment and numerous low-water dams, the upper cipal wastewater treatment facilities, on-site wastewater and middle Guadalupe rank among the highest-quality systems, livestock waste, and vegetation clearing could waters in Texas. also degrade water quality. Additional intentional and acci- Ironically, the presence of the human-made dam and dental introductions of non-native plants and animals, the introduced trout that thrive in its cool downstream including fishes and snails, could further harm the river’s tailwaters has galvanized a major constituency of support native species. for river protection: trout anglers. The Guadalupe is one State and local government agencies, national and of only two trout streams in Texas, and local nonprofit conservation groups, and individual land- the river has been regularly owners are mobilizing stocked with the fishes since to resolve the late 1970s. According to the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife, trout are reproducing successfully in this substantially altered section of the river. Because trout have even higher water quality requirements than © Kate Spencer many native fish species, trout anglers The imperiled Cagle’s map turtle (Graptemys caglei) rarely have become advocates of pollution prevention in the ventures on land except to deposit its eggs. It is found in Texas’s watershed. Guadalupe River system and nowhere else in the world. The upper and middle Guadalupe are also a mecca for recreationists, and some portions of the river have such current and emerging threats and to help conserve the dense concentrations of pleasure-seekers that water qual- biological diversity of the upper and middle Guadalupe ity, shoreline habitat, and underground aquatic life are River. The main strategies include: being damaged. Because people from throughout the state wisely managing the basin’s water resources, flock to the Guadalupe to enjoy its clear waters, recre- including practicing conservation and developing alter- ationists and recreational businesses share with trout native surface water supplies, fishers a concern for water quality. Without clean water, reducing and controlling point and nonpoint recreational opportunities will dry up. sources of pollution through enhanced municipal and Recreational overuse is not the only threat to the individual wastewater treatment, and expanded siting

39 and construction standards for development, developing locally based conservation trusts to limiting use within the riparian zone and restor- work with communities and individuals committed to pro- ing natural communities in upland areas and along the tecting the riparian corridor and other sensitive locations. river and its tributaries, All of these conservation strategies will require the managing recreational uses of the river, active involvement of the private landowners, government selectively removing or reengineering in-stream agencies and officials, conservation organizations, busi- impoundments to restore natural hydrologic variability, ness leaders, and citizens who live, work, and vacation in providing incentives to maintain landownership the upper and middle segments of the Guadalupe River in large unfragmented blocks, and in Texas.

40 Harold E. Malde ©

Verde River Arizona

t least 110 species have gone extinct in North of Arizona and is the largest tributary of the lower Colo- A 21 America since the arrival of European colonists. Seven- rado River. Of the 18 Gila basin fish species, 1 is extinct teen of those extinctions have been freshwater fishes. and 10 are federally listed as endangered or threatened. Potentially joining their ranks are the endangered razor- In total, 78 percent of the Gila’s fish species are either back sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) and Colo- extinct or imperiled. rado squawfish (Ptychocheilus lucius), whose Arizona’s Verde River is one of the larg- populations have been ravaged by preda- est tributaries to the Gila River system. The tory non-native fishes, changes in stream portion above the town of Camp Verde—the flow and water temperature, and river habi- “upper” Verde—is especially noteworthy as tat loss. These fishes are 2 of 18 native fish a stronghold for native fish species. Twelve species historically known from the Gila native fish species historically occurred in the River basin, which covers nearly two-thirds upper Verde River; thanks to reintroduction

41 efforts, nine species can still be found in the main-stem razorback suckers and Colorado squawfishes are long-lived Verde and its major tributaries. One segment of the upper animals, and established individuals can live for up to 60 Verde is considered to be the second most important years. If conditions within the river improve in coming native fishery in Arizona, after Aravaipa Creek. This part decades, the reintroduced fishes may have a shot at repro- of the river flows through some of the least accessible parts ducing successfully. At the very least, species reintro- of the Prescott National Forest. It is particularly good habi- duction efforts may ensure that the endangered fishes’ tat for native fishes because it has remained relatively free genetic diversity is preserved in a natural environment. of the non-native fish species that have harmed many The fish recovery program will be for naught, native Gila fish populations. Although 5 of the historic 12 though, if the other threats to the Verde River are not species had been extirpated from the Verde watershed, 2 managed. The upper Verde River watershed covers 2,600 of these, the Colorado squawfish and the razorback sucker, square miles, parts of which are experiencing rapid popu- are now the subject of intensive recovery efforts. lation growth without any coordinated water resource The Arizona Department of Fish and Game and the planning. The population living in towns in the Verde River U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service began reintroducing razor- basin is projected to increase by 143 percent between 1994 back suckers and Colorado squawfishes to the Verde River and 2040. With such rapid population growth comes in the early 1980s. Millions of tiny increased water use. Although most of the area’s water fry were put into the river demand has been met through un- from the early 1980s derground water extraction, scientists are concerned because this groundwater supply feeds into © Kate Spencer the Verde. There is a danger that increased pumping will reduce river flows, further imper- The state of Arizona and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service are working to reintroduce the endangered razorback sucker (Xyrauchen texanus) iling fishes and other biological resources. into the upper Verde River to counteract the loss of populations from In response to the lack of water resource planning, hydrologic alteration and introductions of non-native fishes. the Verde Natural Resource Conservation District and the Cocopai Resource Conservation and Development Area through the early 1990s, but none survived. Because the formed a local watershed-based planning group, the Verde immature fishes were so small, they were easy prey for Watershed Association (VWA), in 1993. The goal of the introduced species like the flathead catfish (Pylodictus VWA is to protect the Verde River watershed while olivarus). Since 1993, the agencies have been restocking promoting sustainable use of the basin’s resources. the river with larger fishes, which are showing better signs Relying heavily on public participation, the association of surviving. The state agency is also considering elimi- adopted a three-phase approach to water resources plan- nating fishing restrictions on non-native species in the ning: 1) developing a high-quality, shared information Verde River. Ultimate success of species reintroduction base; 2) forming alternative future water-use scenarios can be claimed if the native fishes are able to survive and possible strategies for managing water resources; and to maturity and reproduce successfully. Fortunately, 3) seeking agreement on a long-term water management

42 plan. The VWA and the Natural Resources Conservation the VWA and the Verde Natural Resources Conservation Service conducted a cooperative river basin study and built District, the bureau is also sponsoring springtime river a comprehensive, publicly accessible database. The asso- float trips in which several hundred community members ciation also hosted a series of watershed conferences to learn firsthand about the river’s cultural and natural review the results of the basin study and develop a plan resources. Through a grant from the U.S. Environmental for river and riparian habitat protection. Protection Agency, the Verde Natural Resource Conser- Many partners are involved in the VWA’s water vation District has developed a nursery for restoration of resources management initiative. The Bureau of Reclama- native riparian plant species along the river. These resto- tion is working with a local irrigation district to manage ration, management, and educational initiatives will help streamflow diversion so that it minimizes habitat distur- instill local commitment to protecting the upper Verde bance and maintains adequate river flows. Together with River, its watershed, and its species diversity.

43 Elements of Success

Knowing is not enough; we must apply. Willing is not enough; we must do. Goethe

ow does successful conservation happen? The preceding case studies illustrate positive actions that will help protect freshwater systems from further decline. They demonstrate howH groups of concerned citizens, public agencies, and private organizations can work together toward conserving critical watersheds. In each example, several key elements characterize effective local efforts.

A Catalyzing Event

Whether it is the listing of an endangered species, a proposed water diversion, or an accidental toxic spill, most conservation activities are ignited in response to an immediate problem in a watershed. In some cases, federal or state agencies are mandated to begin addressing the problem; in other cases, the people who live in the watershed perceive a threat to their livelihood or quality of life. To be stirred to action, watershed residents must become aware that they live in a watershed, that their well-being is affected by its health, that it is a priority area for conservation, and that they can do something to help protect it.

Fight, Flee, or Cooperate?

Whether people support or oppose the activities that will affect their watershed, the best watershed management efforts are characterized by people, businesses, and public agencies willing to work together to identify problems and solutions. Cooperation begins with all parties believing they have a role to play, power to influence the outcome, and a sense of responsibility. Everyone who owns land, lives, or makes a living in the watershed can influence the ultimate fate of its water resources. There- fore, their willing participation is critical to success. It is a spirit of cooperation that leads private landowners to apply voluntary conservation practices along Oklahoma’s Kiamichi River to minimize sedimentation from agriculture and forestry activities. Also essential is working on a scale at which people can understand the cause and effect of their actions. For conservation of freshwater biodiversity, the small watershed is a logical rallying point, both geographically and biologically. This report identifies those critical small watershed areas—a mere 15 percent of the country’s total—whose protection will include all U.S. freshwater fish and mussel species at risk.

44 © Alan D. St. John

Nature Conservancy and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service researchers collaborate on a stream study in Oregon’s Twelvemile Creek.

Create a Forum for Discussion and Action

Most people in a watershed are too busy to work full time solving problems by themselves. In addition, the probability of success is low when only one voice is represented. Most watersheds cross multiple political districts (such as townships, counties, and states) and affect many constituencies. If no local watershed association exists to serve as a catalyst for river conservation, an organization like Alabama’s Cahaba River Society can be formed. Ideally, such an organization should have staff dedicated to addressing the complexity of issues and the long-term nature of river conservation activities. Success is often tied to creating a forum in which all constituents in a watershed can be heard. In Virginia’s Clinch Valley, it was the Russell County Vision Forum—formed by the local chamber of commerce, board of supervisors, and planning district commission, along with The Nature Conser- vancy and the National Association of Counties—that set the stage for Russell County residents and businesses to create a blueprint for the future of their county. For the Conasauga River, on the Tennes- see-Georgia border, it was the Conasauga River Alliance.

Identify the Issues and Get the Facts

Identifying the real issues facing the watershed, and getting the best information available to analyze those issues, is essential for success. Good scientific information is required to identify the actual threats to the resource or imperiled species. For example, several private and public entities jointly

45 funded a scientific study of the Altamaha River in Georgia. The information generated by that analysis led to the development of a credible, broadly accepted set of conservation actions to address threats to the river. What is degrading the river—agricultural runoff, lack of municipal sewage treatment, unchecked residential growth, poor forestry practices, or a combination of these problems? Figuring out the real threats and targeting solutions to address them saves time and money.

Assemble the Resources to Solve the Problem

Numerous federal and state agencies offer financial and technical assistance to help address water quality and endangered species issues. For example, the Natural Resources Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture has staff in almost every county who are dedicated to helping private landowners solve environmental problems created by agriculture. The agency administers programs that provide a cost-share for the installation or implementation of conservation practices, such as fences for livestock and buffer strips to reduce erosion from farm fields. Most counties also have soil and water conservation districts that include local residents who help define conservation needs and develop solutions. Other federal agencies, such as the Environmental Protection Agency and the Army Corps of Engineers, can conduct or fund scientific studies to analyze particular problems. One way to attract the interest and support of a public agency is to identify or create a local entity committed to solving environmental problems. It helps to have designated full-time staff, because working with agencies and applying for program support can be time-consuming. The work gets easier as conservation activities in a watershed result in positive outcomes. Maintaining a positive, problem-solving approach is one of the most important elements of an effective program. Finally, all elected officials should be kept fully informed of the activities in the watershed. These people are responsible for maintaining the programs and funding that can make a difference. They also have staff who can direct local residents to the help they need.

46 Safeguarding Our Rivers of Life

he United States is a world center of freshwater biodiversity. Yet, many species inhabiting our freshwater ecosystems are in serious trouble and are far more imperiled than terrestrialT species. The decline in freshwater species reflects the widespread degradation of water quality and quantity in the United States—a siren call to all Americans who value clean water for drinking and recreation. This report argues that concerted efforts to protect a small number of key watershed areas in the United States will make a significant contribution to the conservation of the world’s freshwater biodiversity. These watershed areas, eight of which are profiled in this report, offer many opportunities to protect our rich freshwater biodiversity. Success will depend on the extent to which conservationists, landowners, corporations, and municipalities work cooperatively in these places to ensure good water quality and to maintain or restore natural water flows. Beyond its role in promoting site-based conservation activities, The Nature Conservancy is taking other steps to protect the nation’s freshwater resources. The Conservancy is establishing an organization-wide Freshwater Initiative. This crosscutting program will promote the gathering of biological information, the creation of freshwater conservation demonstration sites, and the development of an Internet-based learning network to share lessons and best management practices. In addition, the Conservancy will be establishing a freshwater conservation center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, to focus activities in the Southeast—arguably the most biologically rich and imperiled region in the world for freshwater species. Protecting water quality and quantity in the critical watersheds identified in this report will do much to secure the future of America’s fish and mussel species and many other associated freshwater organisms. However, many freshwater species are not directly included in these analyses, and their conservation will require additional watersheds to be protected. Ultimately, we should safeguard all the “rivers of life” that flow through our nation. By maintaining or restoring the health of all our nation’s watersheds we not only will help ensure the survival of our aquatic biodiversity, but will help protect our own well-being and quality of life.

47 Cited References

1. Hartfield, P., and R. Butler. 1995. Observations on the release of superconglutinates by Lampsilis perovalis (Conrad 1834). Pages 11-13 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II. Initiatives for the Future. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16- 18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois. 293 pp.

2. Stiassny, M.L.J. 1996. An overview of freshwater biodiversity: with some lessons from African fishes. Fisheries 21:7-13.

3. Abramovitz, J.N. 1996. Imperiled Waters, Impoverished Future: The Decline of Freshwater Ecosystems. Worldwatch Paper 128, Worldwatch Institute, Washington, D.C. 80 pp.

4. McAllister, D.E., A.L. Hamilton, and B. Harvey. 1997. Global freshwater biodiversity: striving for the integrity of freshwater ecosystems. Sea Wind 11(3):1-140.

5. Kottelat, M., and T. Whitten. 1996. Freshwater Biodiversity in Asia with Special Reference to Fish. World Bank Technical Paper Number 343:1-59.

6. Moyle, P.B., and R.A. Leidy. 1992. Loss of biodiversity in aquatic ecosystems: evidence from fish faunas. Pages 127-169 in P.L. Fiedler and S.K. Jain, eds. Conservation Biology: The Theory and Practice of Nature Conserva- tion. Chapman and Hall, New York, New York.

7. Natural Heritage Central Databases, September 1997, The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

8. Hobbs, Horton H., III. Professor, Department of Biology, Wittenberg University, Springfield, Ohio. Personal communication.

9. Williams, J.D., and R.J. Neves. 1995. Freshwater mussels: a neglected and declining aquatic resource. Pages 177-179 in E.T. LaRoe, G.S. Farris, C.E. Puckett, P.D. Doran, and M.J. Mac, eds. Our Living Resources: A Report to the Nation on the Distribution, Abundance, and Health of U.S. Plants, Animals, and Ecosystems. U.S. Depart- ment of the Interior, National Biological Service, Washington, D.C.

10. Bogan, A.E. 1993. Freshwater bivalve extinctions (Mollusca: Unionoida): a search for causes. American Zoologist 33:599-609.

11. Burch, J.B. 1989. North American Freshwater Snails. Malacological Publications, Hamburg, Michigan. 365 pp.

12. Bogan, Arthur E., Curator of Aquatic Invertebrates, North Carolina State Museum of Natural History, Raleigh, North Carolina.

13. Turgeon, D.D., A.E. Bogan, E.V. Coan, W.K. Emerson, W.G. Lyons, W.L. Pratt, C.F.E. Roper, A. Scheltema, F.G. Thompson, and J.D. Williams. 1988. Common and scientific names of aquatic invertebrates from the United States and Canada: mollusks. American Fisheries Society Special Publication 16. 277 pp.

14. Culver, D.C., and H.H. Hobbs III. 1997. Troglobite and stygobite database developed for The Nature Conservancy.

15. Culver, David.C. Professor and Chair, Department of Biology, American University, Washington, D.C. Personal communication.

48 16. Stark, B.P. 1996, August 8 update. North American stonefly list. On-line. Available: http://www.mc.edu/ ~stark/stonefly.html. [1997, December 23].

17. Arnett, R.H. 1985. American Insects. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, New York. 850 pp.

18. Schaefer, C.W., and M. Kosztarab. 1991. Systematics of insects and arachnids: status, problems, and needs in North America. American Entomologist. Winter 1991:211-216.

19. Morse, John C. Professor, Department of Entomology, Clemson University, Clemson, South Carolina. Personal communication.

20. Bridges, C.A. 1993. Catalogue of the Family-group, Genus-group, and Species-group Names of the Odonata of the World (second edition). Published by the author. 762 pp.

21. Stein, B.A., and S.R. Flack. 1997. 1997 Species Report Card: The State of U.S. Plants and Animals. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 26pp.

22. Nehlsen, W., J.E. Williams, and J.A. Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at the crossroads: stocks at risk from California, Oregon, Idaho, and Washington. Fisheries 16:4-21.

23. Benke, A.C. 1990. A perspective on America’s vanishing streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 9:77-88.

24. Wilcove, D.S., and M.J. Bean, eds. 1994. The Big Kill: Declining Biodiversity in America’s Lakes and Rivers. Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C. 275 pp.

25. Warren, M.L., Jr., and B.M. Burr. 1994. Status of freshwater fishes of the United States: overview of an imperiled fauna. Fisheries 19:6-18.

26. Williams, J.D., M.L. Warren, Jr., K.S. Cummings, J.L. Harris, and R.J. Neves. 1992. Conservation status of freshwater mussels in the United States and Canada. Fisheries 18:6-22.

27. Allan, J.D., and A.S. Flecker. 1993. Biodiversity conservation in running waters. BioScience 43:32-43.

28. Flack, S., and R. Chipley, eds. 1996. Troubled Waters. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 17 pp.

29. Environmental Protection Agency. 1997, September 8 update. The Index of Watershed Indicators. On-line. Available: http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi/. [1997, October 29]

30. May, R.M., J.H. Lawton, and N.E. Stork. 1995. Assessing extinction rates. Pages 1-24 in J.H. Lawton and R.M. May, eds. Extinction Rates. Oxford University Press, New York, New York.

31. Pimm, S.L., G.J. Russell, J.L. Gittleman, and T.M. Brooks. 1995. The future of biodiversity. Science 269:347- 350.

32. Master, L.L. 1991. Assessing threats and setting priorities for conservation. Conservation Biology 5:559- 563.

33. Maxwell, J.R., C.J. Edwards, M.E. Jensen, S.J. Paustian, H. Parrot, and D.M. Hill. 1995. A Hierarchical Framework of Aquatic Ecological Units in North America (Nearctic Zone). General Technical Report NC-176. St. Paul, Minnesota: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Forest Experiment Station. 71 pp.

34. Lydeard, C., and R.L. Mayden. 1995. A diverse and endangered aquatic ecosystem of the southeastern United States. Conservation Biology 9:800-805.

49 35. Clemmer, Glenn. Program Manager/Zoologist, Nevada Natural Heritage Program, Department of Conserva- tion and Natural Resources, Carson City, Nevada. Personal communication.

36. Slaney, T.L., K.D. Hyatt, T.G. Northcote, and R.J. Fielden. 1996. Status of anadromous salmon and trout in British Columbia and Yukon. Fisheries 21:20-35.

37. Karr, J.R. 1997. The future is now: biological monitoring to ensure healthy waters. Pages 31-36 in M. Troychak, ed. Streammakers—Aquatic Insects as Biomonitors. The Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon.

38. Richter, B.R., D.P. Braun, M.A. Mendelson, and L.L. Master. 1997. Threats to imperiled freshwater fauna. Conservation Biology 11:1081-1093.

39. Collier, M., R.H. Webb, and J.C. Schmidt. 1996. Dams and Rivers: Primer on the Downstream Effects of Dams. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1126, Tuscon, Arizona. 94 pp.

40. National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy. National Academy of Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 576 pp.

41. Benke, A.C. 1990. A perspective on America’s vanishing streams. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 9:77-88.

42. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Pfiesteria piscicida Homepage. 1997, October 14. On-line. Available. http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/estuaries/pfiesteria/. [1997, October 25].

43. Council on Environmental Quality. 1995. 25th Anniversary Report of the Council on Environmental Quality (1994-1995). President’s Council on Environmental Quality, Washington, D.C.

44. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. 1995. Site Planning for Urban Stream Protection. Envi- ronmental Land Planning Series. Washington, D.C. 232 pp.

45. Klein, R.D. 1985. Effects of Urbanization upon Aquatic Resources. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administration, Annapolis, Maryland. 71 pp.

46. Blackmore, S. 1996. Knowing the Earth’s biodiversity: Challenges for the infrastructure of systematic biology. Science 274:63-64.

47. Rader, D. Programs to protect aquatic biodiversity in North Carolina. Pages 81-100 in Wilcove, D.S., and M.J. Bean, eds. 1994. The Big Kill: Declining Biodiversity in America’s Lakes and Rivers. Environmental Defense Fund, Washington, D.C.

48. Daily, G.C., S. Alexander, P.R. Ehrlich, L. Goulder, J. Lubchenco, P.A. Matson, H.A. Mooney, S. Postel, S.H. Schneider, D. Tilman, and G.M. Woodwell. 1997. Ecosystem Services: Benefits Supplied to Human Societies by Natural Ecosystems. Issues in Ecology, Number 2. Ecological Society of America, Washington, D.C. 16 pp.

49. Fedler, A.J., and D.M. Nickum. 1992. The 1991 economic impact of sport fishing in the United States. Sport Fishing Institute, Washington, D.C. 9 pp.

50. Postel, S., and S. Carpenter. 1997. Freshwater ecosystem services. Pages 195-214 in G.C. Daily, ed. Nature’s Services—Societal Dependence on Ecosystems. Island Press, Washington, D.C.

51. Costanza, R., R. d’arge, R. de Groot, S. Farber, M. Grasso, B. Hannon, K. Limburg, S. Naeem, R.V. O’Neill, J. Paruelo, R.G. Raskin, P. Sutton, and M. van den Belt. 1997. The value of the world’s ecosystem services and natural capital. Nature 387:253-260.

52. Loomis, J.B., and D.S. White. 1996. Economic values of increasingly rare and endangered fish. Fisheries 21:6-10.

50 53. Powers, D. 1989. Fish as model systems. Science 246:352-358.

54. Quammen, D. 1997. Living water. Pages 7-12 in M. Troychak, ed. Streammakers—Aquatic Insects as Biomonitors. The Xerces Society, Portland, Oregon.

55. Richter, B.D., J.V. Baumgartner, R. Wigington, and D.P. Braun. 1997. How much water does a river need? Freshwater Biology 37:231-249.

56. Poff, N.L., J.D. Allan, M.B. Bain, J.R. Karr, K.L. Prestegaard, B.D. Richter, R.E. Sparks, and J.C. Stromberg. 1997. The natural flow regime: a paradigm for river conservation and restoration. BioScience 47:769-784.

57. Moyle, P.B., and R.M. Yoshiyama. 1994. Protection of aquatic biodiversity in California: a five-tiered approach. Fisheries 19:6-18.

58. The Nature Conservancy. 1996. Conservation by Design: A Framework for Mission Success. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia.

59. Bailey, R.G. 1994. Ecoregions of the United States (revised map). U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. Washington, D.C.

60. Omernik, J.M., and R.G. Bailey. 1997. Distinguishing between watersheds and ecoregions. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 33:935-949.

61. The Nature Conservancy. 1997. Designing a Geography of Hope. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 84 pp.

62. Lammert, M., J. Higgins, D. Grossman, and M. Bryer. 1996. A Classification Framework for Freshwater Communities. Proceedings of The Nature Conservancy’s Aquatic Classification Workshop, New Haven, Missouri, April 9-11, 1996. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, Virginia. 16 pp.

63. Williams, P., D. Gibbons, C. Margules, A. Rebelo, C. Humphries, and R. Pressey. 1996. A comparison of richness hotspots, rarity hotspots, and complementary areas for conserving diversity of British birds. Conserva- tion Biology 10:155-174.

64. Prendergast, J., R.M. Quinn, J.H. Lawton, B.C. Eversham, and D.W. Gibbons. 1993. Rare species, the coincidence of diversity hotspots and conservation strategies. Nature 365:335-337.

65. Knopf, F.L., and F.B. Samson. 1994. Scale perspectives on avian diversity in western riparian ecosystems. Conservation Biology 8:669-676.

66. Hartfield, P. 1993. Headcuts and their effect on freshwater mussels. Pages 131-141 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, and L.M. Koch, eds. Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels. Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 12-14 October 1992, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island, Illinois.

67. Csuti, B., S. Polasky, P.H. Williams, R.L. Pressey, J.D. Lamm, M. Kershaw, A.R. Kiester, B. Downs, R. Hamilton, M. Huso, and K. Sahr. 1997. A comparison of reserve selection algorithms using data on terrestrial vertebrates in Oregon. Biological Conservation 80:83-97.

68. Carpenter, Virginia, Director of Science and Stewardship, Rhode Island Chapter, The Nature Conservancy, Providence, Rhode Island. Personal communication.

69. Moyle, Peter B., Professor, Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Biology, University of California-Davis, Davis, California. Personal communication.

70. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. In preparation. Mobile River Basin Aquatic Ecosystem Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Jackson, Mississippi.

51 Additional Resources

or more information on freshwater life, and what you can do to help protect our nation’s rivers and waterways, contact or visit the Web sites of the following organizations. Your local library may be ableF to provide Internet access if you do not have personal access. Association for Biodiversity Information (ABI): http://www.abi.org/abi ABI helps Natural Heritage Programs to operate as a network by sharing technologies, promoting the exchange of knowledge and experiences, and facilitating the development of information products and services.

American Fisheries Society (AFS): http://www.esd.ornl.gov/societies/AFS/ AFS promotes scientific research and enlightened management of fisheries resources for optimum use and enjoyment by the public. It publishes some of the world’s leading fisheries research journals.

American Rivers: http://www.amrivers.org American Rivers is a national river-saving organization. Its web site tracks recent and upcoming national river policies, including the American Heritage Rivers Initiative and America’s Most Endangered Rivers nominations.

American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists: http://www.utexas.edu/depts/asih/ The primary goals of the Society are to increase knowledge about fishes, amphibians, and reptiles and to disseminate that knowledge through conferences and publications, such as the journal COPEIA.

Desert Fishes Council: http://www.utexas.edu/depts/tnhc/.www/fish/dfc/dfc_top.html The Council’s mission is to preserve the biological integrity of desert aquatic ecosystems and their associated life forms.

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF): http://www.edf.org/ EDF is a leading advocate of economic incentives as a new approach to solving environmental problems. It maintains a Member Action Network to influence national environmental policy.

Global Rivers Environmental Education Network (GREEN): http://www.igc.apc.org/green/ GREEN works with business, government, community, and educational organizations across the United States and Canada, and with GREEN Country Coordinators in 135 countries, to support local efforts in watershed education and sustainability.

International Rivers Network: http://www.irn.org/ This Web site provides activists with important in-depth background and current information on river campaigns.

Izaak Walton League: http://www.iwla.org/iwla/ The League uses a grassroots approach to protecting U.S. soil, air, woods, waters, and wildlife and has a nationwide river conservation program called “Save Our Streams.”

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG): http://www.mwcog.org/index.html MWCOG provides a series of reports on topics such as watershed restoration, controlling urban runoff, and riparian buffer strategies in urban settings that can be ordered through its Web site.

52 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): http://www.noaa.gov The mission of NOAA is to describe and predict changes in the Earth’s environment, and to conserve and manage wisely the nation’s coastal and marine resources.

National Park Service: http://www.nps.gov/ The primary mission of the National Park Service is to regulate the use of the national parks to conserve the scenery and natural and historic objects and wildlife therein and to provide for their enjoyment in a manner that will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.

Natural Resources Conservation Service: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/ The mission of the Natural Resources Conservation Service is to provide leadership and administer programs to help people conserve, improve, and sustain our natural resources and environment.

Potential Priority Watersheds for Protection of Water Quality from Nonpoint Sources Related to Agriculture: http://www.nhq.nrcs.usda.gov/land/env/wqpost2.html/ National maps developed to assist decisionmakers in identifying priority watersheds for water quality protection from nonpoint sources due to agriculture.

Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA): http://www.cr.nps.gov:80/rtca/ The RTCA program helps communities protect rivers, trails, and greenways on lands not owned or managed by the federal government.

Natural Heritage Network: http://www.heritage.tnc.org/ Natural Heritage Programs collectively represent the largest ongoing effort to gather standardized data on imperiled plants, animals, and ecosystems.

Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC): http://www.nrdc.org/nrdc/ NRDC’s mission is to preserve the environment, protect public health, and ensure the conservation of wilderness and natural resources.

NCSU Water Quality Group, WATERSHEDSS: A decision support system for nonpoint source pollution control: http://h2osparc.wq.ncsu.edu/ WATERSHEDSS (Water, Soil, and Hydro-Environmental Decision Support System) is designed to help watershed managers identify their water quality problems and select best management practices.

North American Benthological Society: http://www.benthos.org/ The Society works to promote better understanding of benthic communities—groups of species living on or in lake or sea bottoms.

River Network: http://www.teleport.com/~rivernet/index.html This Web site includes resources for watershed protection and management of nonprofit organizations, and a directory of river organizations.

River Watch Network: http://www.riverwatch.org/ River Watch Network brings together people to monitor, restore, and protect their rivers, helping communities develop scientific studies and river conservation strategies.

Southeastern Fishes Council (SFC): http://www.flmnh.ufl.edu/fish/sfc/ This Web site presents SFC publications including PROCEEDINGS, a biannual journal of peer-reviewed science papers, and other regional reports.

The Nature Conservancy: http://www.tnc.org/ The Conservancy’s mission is to preserve plants, animals, and natural communities that represent the diversity of life on Earth by protecting the lands and waters they need to survive.

The Watershed Management Council: http://watershed.org/wmchome/index.html The Watershed Management Council is a nonprofit educational organization dedicated to advancing the art and science of watershed management.

53 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): http://www.epa.gov/ The EPA has a variety of programs and offices that focus on improving the nation’s water quality, and watershed health. Among them are:

Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds (OWOW): http://www.epa.gov/owow/ A general directory to the EPA’s extensive Wetland, Ocean, and Watershed programs.

Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/NPS/ Basic questions and answers about nonpoint source pollution, and a bulletin dealing with the condition of aquatic ecosystems.

Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/state/ A publication detailing OWOW’s approach to water resources management within watersheds. The EPA is using this approach to focus on hydrologically defined resource areas, watersheds, and aquifers.

The Watershed Academy: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/watershed/wacademy.html Training courses and related materials about watershed processes, functions, and management techniques.

Surf Your Watershed: http://www.epa.gov/surf/ Index of Watershed Indicators: http://www.epa.gov/surf/iwi/ Information on 15 measures of watershed “health” compiled for 2,111 watersheds in the contiguous 48 states.

American Heritage Rivers: http://www.epa.gov/OWOW/heritage/rivers.html Detailed description and comments on President Clinton’s American Heritage Rivers Initiative.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: http://www.fws.gov This Web site describes the agency’s regional divisions and their major responsibilities, including endangered species, freshwater and anadromous fishes, wetlands, migratory birds, and the National Wildlife Refuge System.

U.S. Geological Survey: http://www.usgs.gov/

USGS—Water Resources of the United States: http://h2o.er.usgs.gov/ Water data, publications, and programs provided by the USGS.

USGS—Hydrologic Unit Maps: http://water.usgs.gov/public/GIS/huc.html Maps of U.S. hydrologic units at several scales. Each hydrologic unit is identified by a unique hydrologic unit code (HUC).

USGS—National Water Quality-Assessment (NAWQA) Program: http://wwwrvares.er.usgs.gov/ nawqa/nawqa_home.html A resource that defines water quality status and trends in the nation’s ground and surface water resources.

USGS—Biological Resources Division: http://www.nbs.gov/ The Biological Resources Division of USGS provides scientific information and technologies to support the sound management and conservation of U.S. biological resources.

USGS—Nonindigenous Aquatic Species: http://nas.nfrcg.gov/ This site is a central repository for spatially referenced biogeographic accounts of non-native aquatic species.

World Wildlife Fund: http://www.wwf.org/ The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) conducts worldwide efforts to protect threatened wildlife and the habitats it needs to survive.

54 Appendix A: Numbers of At-Risk Fish and Mussel Species In Freshwater Regions 33 of the United States

Freshwater Number of Fish Number of Mussel Total of Fish and Region Species at Risk Species at Risk Mussel Species at Risk

Tennessee-Cumberland 57 47 104 Mobile 42 23 65 Interior Highlands 28 26 54 South Atlantic 25 22 47 Florida Gulf 17 23 40 Old Ohio 13 25 38 Teays 19 17 36 Mississippi Embayment 21 13 34 Central Prairie 17 15 32 Middle Mississippi 8 16 24 Pamlico-Ablemarle Sound 13 8 21 Florida 5 14 19 Pacific Mid-Coastal 17 1 18 West Texas Gulf 11 6 17 East Texas Gulf 6 9 15 Lower Rio Grande 12 3 15 Upper Mississippi 6 8 14 Pecos 13 1 14 Erie-Ontario 5 8 13 Chesapeake Bay 4 8 12 Michigan-Huron 6 5 11 Bonneville 10 0 10 Vegas-Virgin 10 0 10 California Central Valley 8 2 10 Gila 8 0 8 Little Colorado 8 0 8 Middle Missouri 6 2 8 Lahontan 8 0 8 Upper Colorado 7 0 7 Lower Colorado 6 0 6 Pacific Coastal 6 0 6 Columbia Unglaciated 4 2 6 Death Valley 5 0 5 Oregon Lakes 5 0 5 Long Island Sound 2 3 5 Southern Plains 5 0 5 Pacific North Coastal 3 2 5 Superior 5 0 5

55 Freshwater Number of Fish Number of Mussel Total of Fish and Region Species at Risk Species at Risk Mussel Species at Risk

Lower St. Lawrence 4 0 4 Upper Snake 4 0 4 Upper Rio Grande 4 0 4 South Coastal 4 0 4 Upper Missouri 3 0 3 Gulf of Maine 2 1 3 Guzman 3 0 3 Columbia Glaciated 1 1 2 English-Winnipeg Lakes 2 0 2 Upper Saskatchewan 1 0 1

56 Appendix B: U.S. Watershed Hot Spots with 10 or More At-Risk Freshwater Fish and Mussel Species

Number of Fish and Number of Fish Small Watershed Area Mussel Species with (subbasin, or USGS Hydrologic States and Mussel U.S. Endangered Cataloging Unit) Species at Risk Species Act Status Upper Clinch VA,TN 48 21 Upper Duck TN 33 6 Powell VA,TN 30 13 Upper Green KY 29 7 Upper Elk TN 27 9 South Fork Cumberland TN,KY 22 7 Wheeler Lake AL,TN 22 9 Conasauga GA,TN 21 10 Tippecanoe IN 21 6 Upper Ouachita AR 20 3 Holston TN 20 12 Spring [Upper White basin] AR,MO 20 1 Lower Wabash IN,IL 20 8 Nolichucky TN,NC 19 6 South Fork Holston VA,TN 19 4 Lower Little Tennessee TN,NC 19 7 Watts Bar Lake TN 19 8 Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland KY,TN 18 5 North Fork Holston VA,TN 18 4 Lower Little AR,OK 17 3 Middle Wabash-Deer IN 17 7 Lower Tennessee-Beech TN,MS 16 8 Little Missouri AR 16 1 Lower East Fork White IN 16 5 Pickwick Lake AL,TN 15 4 Lower Duck TN 15 6 Lower Cumberland-Old Hickory Lake TN 15 10 Strawberry AR 15 0 Buttahatchee AL,MS 15 6 Barren KY,TN 15 3 Hiwassee TN,NC,GA 15 2 Upper Tombigbee MS,AL 14 7 Ouachita Headwaters AR 14 1 Buffalo TN 14 4 Upper Little OK 14 2 Lower Clinch TN 14 11 Middle Tennessee-Chickamauga TN,GA 14 6 Current MO,AR 14 1 Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion IN,IL 14 6

57 Number of Fish and Number of Fish Small Watershed Area Mussel Species with (subbasin, or USGS Hydrologic States and Mussel U.S. Endangered Cataloging Unit) Species at Risk Species Act Status Middle Wabash-Busseron IN,IL 14 6 Caney TN 13 5 Altamaha GA 13 2 Sipsey AL 13 6 Upper Saline AR 13 1 Spring [Neosho basin] MO,KS,OK 13 3 Middle White AR 13 1 Upper White IN 13 3 Waccamaw NC,SC 12 2 Cahaba AL 12 4 Apalachicola FL,GA 12 4 Upper Flint GA 12 2 Yellow FL,AL 12 0 Rockcastle KY 12 3 Beaver Reservoir AR,MO 12 1 French PA,NY 12 2 Etowah GA 11 3 Collins TN 11 4 Lower Ocmulgee GA 11 2 Escambia AL,FL 11 2 Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F. George GA,AL 11 1 Reservoir Pea AL,FL 11 2 Lower Choctawhatchee FL,AL 11 2 Lower Conecuh AL 11 1 Upper Tar NC 11 2 Emory TN 11 4 Kinchafoonee-Muckalee GA 11 3 Upper Neuse NC 11 1 Kiamichi OK 11 1 Upper Cumberland-Cordell Hull TN 11 3 Lower French Broad TN 11 4 Upper Black MO,AR 11 1 Elk WV 11 3 Lost CA,OR 10 2 Little Red AR 10 1 Lower Tallapoosa AL 10 2 Upper Little Tennessee NC 10 3 Sepulga AL 10 0 Middle Alabama AL 10 3 Luxapallila AL,MS 10 3 Red TN,KY 10 1 Buffalo AR 10 0 Illinois OK,AR 10 2 Lower Ohio KY,IL 10 3 Licking KY 10 2 Muskingum OH 10 2 Ohio Brush-Whiteoak OH,KY 10 1 Little Muskingum-Middle Island WV,OH 10 2

58 Appendix C: Critical Watersheds to Conserve At-Risk Fish and Mussel Species

Number of Small Watershed Area At-Risk Fish (subbasin, or USGS Hydrologic States Primary Ecoregion Cataloging Unit) and Mussel Species

Wheeler Lake AL, TN Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 23 Buttahatchee AL, MS Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 15 Sipsey AL Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 15 Pickwick Lake AL, TN Interior Low Plateau 15 Cahaba AL Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 14 Lower Tallapoosa AL Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 12 Pea AL, FL East Gulf Coastal Plain 11 Lower Conecuh AL, FL East Gulf Coastal Plain 11 Escambia AL, FL East Gulf Coastal Plain 11 Middle Coosa AL Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 11 Sepulga AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 10 Middle Alabama AL Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 10 Luxapallila AL, MS Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 10 Sipsey Fork AL Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 9 Upper Conecuh AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 8 Lower Coosa AL Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 8 Mobile-Tensaw AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 8 Upper Choctawhatchee AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 7 Lower Alabama AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 7 Middle Tombigbee-Lubbub AL, MS Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 7 Locust AL Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 7 Upper Black Warrior AL Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 7 Patsaliga AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 6 Middle Tallapoosa AL Piedmont 6 Upper Alabama AL Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 6 Lower Tombigbee AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 5 Upper Ouachita AR Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain 20 Little Missouri AR Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain 16 Strawberry AR Ozarks 16 Ouachita Headwaters AR Ouachita Mountains 14 Upper Saline AR Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain 13 Buffalo AR Ozarks 10 Little Red AR Ozarks 10 Bayou Bartholomew AR, LA Mississippi River Alluvial Plain 7 Lower Ouachita-Smackover AR Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain 6 Cache AR Mississippi River Alluvial Plain 3 Little Colorado Headwaters AZ, NM Arizona-New Mexico Mountains 4 Chevelon Canyon AZ Arizona-New Mexico Mountains 4

59 Number of Small Watershed Area At-Risk Fish (subbasin, or USGS Hydrologic States Primary Ecoregion Cataloging Unit) and Mussel Species

Lower San Pedro AZ Sonora Desert 4 San Bernardino Valley AZ, NM Apache Highlands 4 Grand Canyon AZ Colorado Plateau 3 Upper Verde AZ Apache Highlands 3 Upper Santa Cruz AZ Apache Highlands 2 Whitewater Draw AZ Apache Highlands 2 Rio Sonoyta AZ Sonora Desert 1 Rio De La Concepcion AZ Apache Highlands 1 Lower Pit CA West Cascades and Coastal Forests 6 Upper Pit CA Modoc Plateau and East Cascades 5 Suisun Bay CA Great Central Valley 5 San Pablo Bay CA California Central Coast 5 San Francisco Bay CA California Central Coast 5 Lower Sacramento CA Great Central Valley 4 Lower Cosumnes-Lower Mokelumne CA Great Central Valley 3 Santa Clara CA California South Coast 3 Mad-Redwood CA California North Coast 2 Lower Eel CA California North Coast 2 Russian CA California North Coast 2 Upper Cache CA California North Coast 2 Mill-Big Chico CA Great Central Valley 2 Upper King CA Sierra Nevada 2 San Gabriel CA California South Coast 2 Santa Ana CA California South Coast 2 Santa Margarita CA California South Coast 2 Crowley Lake CA, NV Great Basin 2 Owens Lake CA Mohave Desert 2 Death Valley-Lower Amargosa CA, NV Mohave Desert 2 Upper Cow-Battle CA West Cascades and Coastal Forests 1 Upper Kern CA Sierra Nevada 1 Upper Tuolumne CA Sierra Nevada 1 Colorado Headwaters-Plateau CO, UT Colorado Rocky Mountains 5 Lower Yampa CO Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mountains 5 Lower White CO, UT Wyoming Basins 4 Lower Gunnison CO Colorado Rocky Mountains 3 Apalachicola FL, GA East Gulf Coastal Plain 13 Lower Choctawhatchee FL, AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 11 Yellow FL, AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 10 Lower Ochlockonee FL, GA East Gulf Coastal Plain 9 Chipola FL, AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 9 Lower Suwannee FL East Gulf Coastal Plain 8 Santa Fe FL Florida Peninsula 7 Lower St. Johns FL Florida Peninsula 6 St. Andrew-St. Joseph Bays FL East Gulf Coastal Plain 4 Oklawaha FL Florida Peninsula 3 Choctawhatchee Bay FL East Gulf Coastal Plain 3 Everglades FL Tropical Florida 2 Kissimmee FL Florida Peninsula 1

60 Number of Small Watershed Area At-Risk Fish (subbasin, or USGS Hydrologic States Primary Ecoregion Cataloging Unit) and Mussel Species

Lower Ocmulgee GA South Atlantic Coastal Plain 13 Altamaha GA South Atlantic Coastal Plain 13 Middle Chattahoochee-Walter F. GA, AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 13 George Reservoir Upper Flint GA Piedmont 12 Kinchafoonee-Muckalee GA East Gulf Coastal Plain 12 Etowah GA Piedmont 12 Ohoopee GA South Atlantic Coastal Plain 10 Lower Chattahoochee GA, AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 9 Upper Coosa GA, AL Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 9 Lower Oconee GA South Atlantic Coastal Plain 8 Little Ocmulgee GA South Atlantic Coastal Plain 8 Ichawaynochaway GA East Gulf Coastal Plain 8 Upper Tallapoosa GA, AL Piedmont 8 Lower Flint GA East Gulf Coastal Plain 7 Coosawattee GA Southern Blue Ridge 7 Upper Suwannee GA, FL South Atlantic Coastal Plain 6 Oostanaula GA Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 6 Upper Ocmulgee GA Piedmont 4 Upper Ochlockonee GA East Gulf Coastal Plain 4 Upper Ogeechee GA South Atlantic Coastal Plain 3 Upper Oconee GA Piedmont 3 Satilla GA South Atlantic Coastal Plain 2 Little Sioux IA, MN Northern Tallgrass Prairie 1 Bear Lake ID, UT Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mountains 5 Upper Snake-Rock ID Columbia Plateau 1 Big Wood ID Idaho Batholith 1 Little Wood ID Columbia Plateau 1 Middle Wabash-Little Vermilion IL, IN North Central Tillplain 14 Vermilion IL, IN Central Tallgrass Prairie 9 Embarras IL Interior Low Plateau 7 Kankakee IL, IN Central Tallgrass Prairie 7 Tippecanoe IN North Central Tillplain 21 Lower East Fork White IN Interior Low Plateau 16 St. Joseph IN, OH, MI North Central Tillplain 8 Driftwood IN North Central Tillplain 7 Blue-Sinking IN, KY Interior Low Plateau 7 Crooked KS, OK Central Shortgrass Prairie 3 Upper Cimarron-Bluff KS, OK Central Mixed-Grass Prairie 3 Middle Neosho KS Osage Plains/Flint Hills Prairie 3 Upper Green KY Interior Low Plateau 29 South Fork Cumberland KY, TN Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 22 Upper Cumberland-Lake Cumberland KY, TN Interior Low Plateau 18 Barren KY, TN Interior Low Plateau 15 Rockcastle KY Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 12 Licking KY Interior Low Plateau 10 Lower Tennessee KY Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 9 Upper Cumberland KY, TN Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 4 Bayou De Chien-Mayfield KY Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 2

61 Number of Small Watershed Area At-Risk Fish (subbasin, or USGS Hydrologic States Primary Ecoregion Cataloging Unit) and Mussel Species

Bayou Teche LA Mississippi River Alluvial Plain 8 Upper Calcasieu LA Piney Woods 6 Lower Red-Lake Iatt LA Piney Woods 3 Mermentau Headwaters LA Gulf Coast Prairies and Marshes 2 Cacapon-Town MD, PA, WV, VA Central Appalachian Forest 2 Mattawamkeag ME Northern Appalachian/Boreal Forest 1 Lake Superior MI, WI, MN Great Lakes 2 Dead-Kelsey MI Great Lakes 1 Lake Huron MI Great Lakes 1 Spring MO, AR Ozarks 19 Lower Little MO, OK Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain 17 Current MO, AR Ozarks 14 Spring MO, KS, OK Ozarks 13 Upper Black MO, AR Ozarks 11 Meramec MO Ozarks 8 Lower Gasconade MO Ozarks 6 Sac MO Ozarks 5 Niangua MO Ozarks 5 Upper Tombigbee MS, AL Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 15 Pascagoula MS East Gulf Coastal Plain 7 Tangipahoa MS, LA East Gulf Coastal Plain 7 Lower Chickasawhay MS, AL East Gulf Coastal Plain 6 Amite MS, LA East Gulf Coastal Plain 6 Bayou Pierre MS Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 3 Little Tallahatchie MS Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 2 Yocona MS Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 1 Fort Peck Reservoir MT Northern Great Plains Steppe 3 Prairie Elk-Wolf MT Northern Great Plains Steppe 3 Charlie-Little Muddy MT, ND Northern Great Plains Steppe 3 Lower Yellowstone MT Northern Great Plains Steppe 3 Upper Tar NC Piedmont 11 Upper Neuse NC Piedmont 11 Waccamaw NC, SC Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain 11 Upper Little Tennessee NC, GA Southern Blue Ridge 10 Fishing NC Piedmont 8 Lower Yadkin NC Piedmont 7 Deep NC Piedmont 6 Rocky NC, SC Piedmont 6 Lower Cape Fear NC Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain 4 Black NC Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain 4 Lumber NC, SC Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain 4 Little Pee Dee NC, SC Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain 4 Albemarle NC Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain 2 Lake Sakakawea ND Northern Great Plains Steppe 3 Upper Connecticut-Mascoma NH, VT Lower New England/Northern Piedmont 2 Lower Delaware NJ, PA North Atlantic Coast 2 Upper Pecos-Black NM, TX Chihuahua Desert 8 Upper Gila NM Arizona-New Mexico Mountains 7 Upper Gila-Mangas NM, AZ Apache Highlands 7

62 Number of Small Watershed Area At-Risk Fish (subbasin, or USGS Hydrologic States Primary Ecoregion Cataloging Unit) and Mussel Species

San Francisco NM, AZ Arizona-New Mexico Mountains 6 Upper Pecos-Long Arroyo NM Chihuahua Desert 5 Mimbres NM Chihuahua Desert 3 Rio Hondo NM Arizona-New Mexico Mountains 3 Rio Grande-Santa Fe NM Colorado Rocky Mountains 2 Elephant Butte Reservoir NM Arizona-New Mexico Mountains 2 Rio Felix NM Chihuahua Desert 2 Tularosa Valley NM, TX Chihuahua Desert 1 Lower Virgin NV, UT, AZ Mohave Desert 5 White NV Great Basin 5 Muddy NV Great Basin 3 Havasu-Mohave Lakes NV, AZ, CA Mohave Desert 3 Meadow Valley Wash NV Great Basin 2 Spring-Steptoe Valleys NV Great Basin 2 Fish Lake-Soda Spring Valleys NV, CA Great Basin 2 Upper Amargosa NV, CA Great Basin 2 Lower Quinn NV Great Basin 1 Massacre Lake NV Columbia Plateau 1 Thousand-Virgin NV, OR Columbia Plateau 1 Truckee NV, CA Columbia Plateau 1 Pyramid-Winnemucca Lakes NV Columbia Plateau 1 Long-Ruby Valleys NV Great Basin 1 Hot Creek-Railroad Valleys NV Great Basin 1 Middle Delaware-Mongaup-Brodhead NY, PA, NJ High Allegheny Plateau 2 Lake George NY, VT Great Lakes 1 Middle Hudson NY Lower New England/Northern Piedmont 2 Hudson-Wappinger NY Lower New England/Northern Piedmont 2 Muskingum OH Western Allegheny Plateau 10 Upper Scioto OH North Central Tillplain 8 Upper Little OK Ouachita Mountains 14 Kiamichi OK Ouachita Mountains 11 Lower Neosho OK, AR Ozarks 2 Lost OR, CA Modoc Plateau and East Cascades 10 Upper Klamath Lake OR West Cascades and Coastal Forests 9 Sprague OR Modoc Plateau and East Cascades 8 Williamson OR Modoc Plateau and East Cascades 7 Upper Klamath OR, CA Klamath Mountains 7 Upper Grande Ronde OR Idaho Batholith 3 Lower Grande Ronde OR, WA Idaho Batholith 3 Middle Fork Willamette OR West Cascades and Coastal Forests 2 Mckenzie OR West Cascades and Coastal Forests 2 South Umpqua OR Klamath Mountains 2 Umpqua OR West Cascades and Coastal Forests 2 Alvord Lake OR, NV Columbia Plateau 2 Warner Lakes OR, CA, NV Columbia Plateau 1 Guano OR, NV Columbia Plateau 1 Goose Lake OR, CA Modoc Plateau and East Cascades 1 French PA, NY Western Allegheny Plateau 12 Middle Allegheny-Tionesta PA High Allegheny Plateau 8

63 Number of Small Watershed Area At-Risk Fish (subbasin, or USGS Hydrologic States Primary Ecoregion Cataloging Unit) and Mussel Species

Lynches SC, NC Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain 8 Lower Catawba SC, NC Piedmont 8 Middle Savannah SC, GA South Atlantic Coastal Plain 7 Saluda SC Piedmont 5 Broad-St. Helena SC South Atlantic Coastal Plain 4 Edisto SC Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain 3 Stevens SC Piedmont 2 Upper White SD, NE Northern Great Plains Steppe 1 Middle White SD Northern Great Plains Steppe 1 Vermillion SD Northern Tallgrass Prairie 1 Upper Duck TN Interior Low Plateau 32 Upper Elk TN Interior Low Plateau 27 Conasauga TN, GA Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 24 Holston TN Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 21 Nolichucky TN Southern Blue Ridge 20 Watts Bar Lake TN Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 19 Lower Little Tennessee TN, NC Southern Blue Ridge 19 Lower Tennessee-Beech TN, MS Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 17 Lower Duck TN Interior Low Plateau 15 Hiwassee TN, NC, GA Southern Blue Ridge 14 Buffalo TN Interior Low Plateau 14 Caney TN Interior Low Plateau 13 Collins TN Interior Low Plateau 11 Emory TN Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 11 Red TN, KY Interior Low Plateau 10 Lower Elk TN, AL Interior Low Plateau 9 North Fork Forked Deer TN Upper East Gulf Coastal Plain 2 Big Bend TX Chihuahua Desert 7 Lower Devils TX Chihuahua Desert 7 Middle Sabine TX, LA Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain 6 San Saba TX Edwards Plateau 6 Black Hills-Fresno TX Chihuahua Desert 6 Upper Devils TX Edwards Plateau 6 Toledo Bend Reservoir TX, LA Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain 5 South Llano TX Edwards Plateau 5 Medina TX Edwards Plateau 5 Lower Neches TX Piney Woods 4 Middle Brazos-Millers TX Southern Shortgrass Prairie 4 San Marcos TX Crosstimbers &Southern Tallgrass Prairie 4 Upper San Antonio TX Crosstimbers &Southern Tallgrass Prairie 4 Reagan-Sanderson TX Chihuahua Desert 4 Lower Pecos-Red Bluff Reservoir TX, NM Chihuahua Desert 4 Middle Colorado-Elm TX Southern Shortgrass Prairie 3 Concho TX Edwards Plateau 3 Upper Guadalupe TX Edwards Plateau 3 Middle Guadalupe TX Crosstimbers &Southern Tallgrass Prairie 3 Upper Frio TX South Texas Plains 3 Caddo Lake TX, LA Upper West Gulf Coastal Plain 2 Middle Neches TX Piney Woods 2

64 Number of Small Watershed Area At-Risk Fish (subbasin, or USGS Hydrologic States Primary Ecoregion Cataloging Unit) and Mussel Species

Lower Angelina TX Piney Woods 2 Middle Brazos-Palo Pinto TX Southern Shortgrass Prairie 2 South Laguna Madre TX South Texas Plains 2 Toyah TX Chihuahua Desert 2 Independence TX Chihuahua Desert 2 Lower Rio Grande TX South Texas Plains 1 Westwater Canyon UT, CO Colorado Plateau 5 Upper Colorado-Kane Springs UT Colorado Plateau 5 Lower Green-Diamond UT, CO Wyoming Basins 5 Lower Green-Desolation Canyon UT Utah High Plateaus 5 Upper Virgin UT Colorado Plateau 5 Duchesne UT Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mountains 4 Lower Green UT Colorado Plateau 4 Utah Lake UT Great Basin 2 Lower Sevier UT Great Basin 2 Lower Weber UT Utah-Wyoming Rocky Mountains 1 Upper Clinch VA, TN Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 50 Powell VA, TN Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 30 South Fork Holston VA, TN Central Appalachian Forest 18 North Fork Holston VA, TN Central Appalachian Forest 17 Upper Roanoke VA Piedmont 9 Nottoway VA, NC Piedmont 9 Upper James VA, WV Central Appalachian Forest 8 Upper Dan VA, NC Piedmont 8 Meherrin VA, NC Piedmont 6 Upper New VA, NC Southern Blue Ridge 6 Middle James-Buffalo VA Piedmont 5 Pamunkey VA Cheaspeake Bay Lowlands 4 Lower Columbia-Sandy WA, OR West Cascades and Coastal Forests 3 Willapa Bay WA West Cascades and Coastal Forests 3 Colville WA Canadian Rocky Mountains 2 Grays Harbor WA West Cascades and Coastal Forests 2 North Umpqua WA West Cascades and Coastal Forests 2 Upper Skagit WA North Cascades 2 Stillaguamish WA Puget Trough and Willamette Valley 2 Lower St. Croix WI, MN Superior Mixed Forest 9 Copperas-Duck WI, IL Central Tallgrass Prairie 9 Lower Chippewa WI Prairie-Forest Border 7 Wolf WI Superior Mixed Forest 6 Lower Wisconsin WI Prairie-Forest Border 5 Upper Chippewa WI Superior Mixed Forest 3 Upper Kanawha WV Cumberlands & Southern Ridge & Valley 7 Middle New WV, VA Central Appalachian Forest 5 Greenbrier WV Central Appalachian Forest 5 Cheat WV, PA, MD Central Appalachian Forest 2 Tygart Valley WV Central Appalachian Forest 1

65 Appendix D: U.S. State and Regional Natural Heritage Data Centers

The Nature Conservancy Connecticut Natural Diversity Database Conservation Science Division Natural Resources Center 1815 N. Lynn St. Department of Environmental Protection Arlington, VA 22209 79 Elm Street, Store Level (703) 841-5300 Hartford, CT 06106-5127 (860) 424-3540 Association for Biodiversity Information 3220 N St., NW #205 Delaware Natural Heritage Program Washington, DC 20007 Division of Fish & Wildlife Dept of Natural Resources & Environmental Control Alabama Natural Heritage Program 4876 Hay Point Landing Road Huntingdon College Smyrna, DE 19977 Massey Hall (302) 653-2880 1500 East Fairview Avenue Montgomery, AL 36106-2148 District of Columbia Natural Heritage Program (334) 834-4519 13025 Riley’s Lock Road Poolesville, MD 20837 Alaska Natural Heritage Program (301) 427-1302 University of Alaska Anchorage 707 A Street Florida Natural Areas Inventory Anchorage, AK 99501 1018 Thomasville Rd., Suite 200-C (907) 257-2780 Tallahassee, FL 32303 (850) 224-8207 Arizona Heritage Data Management System Arizona Game & Fish Department Georgia Natural Heritage Program WM-H Wildlife Resources Division 2221 W. Greenway Road Georgia Department of Natural Resources Phoenix, AZ 85023 2117 U.S. Highway 278 S.E. (602) 789-3612 Social Circle, GA 30025 (706) 557-3032 Arkansas Natural Heritage Program Research Section Hawaii Natural Heritage Program Arkansas Natural Heritage Commission The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii Suite 1500, Tower Building 1116 Smith Street, Suite 201 323 Center Street Honolulu, HI 96817 Little Rock, AR 72201 (808) 537-4508 (501) 324-9150 Idaho Conservation Data Center California Natural Heritage Division Department of Fish & Game Department of Fish & Game 600 South Walnut Street, Box 25 1220 S Street Boise, ID 83707-0025 Sacramento, CA 95814 (208) 334-3402 (916) 322-2493 Illinois Natural Heritage Division Colorado Natural Heritage Program Department of Natural Resources Colorado State University 524 South Second Street 254 General Services Building Springfield, IL 62701-1787 Fort Collins, CO 80523 (217) 785-8774 (970) 491-1309

66 Indiana Natural Heritage Data Center Michigan Natural Features Inventory Division of Nature Preserves Mason Building, 8th floor Department of Natural Resources Box 30444 402 West Washington Street, Room W267 Lansing, MI 48909-7944 Indianapolis, IN 46204 (517) 373-1552 (317) 232-4052 Minnesota Natural Heritage & Nongame Research Iowa Natural Areas Inventory Department of Natural Resources Department of Natural Resources 500 Lafayette Road, Box 25 Wallace State Office Building St. Paul, MN 55155 East 9th/Grand, 4th Floor (612) 296-2835 Des Moines, IA 50319-0034 (515) 281-5918 Mississippi Natural Heritage Program Museum of Natural Science Kansas Natural Heritage Inventory 111 North Jefferson Street Kansas Biological Survey Jackson, MS 39201-2897 2041 Constant Avenue (601) 354-7303 Lawrence, KS 66047-2906 (913) 864-3453 Missouri Natural Heritage Database Missouri Department of Conservation Kentucky Natural Heritage Program P.O. Box 180 Kentucky State Nature Preserves Commission Jefferson City, MO 65102-0180 801 Schenkel Lane (573) 751-4115 Frankfort, KY 40601 (502) 573-2886 Montana Natural Heritage Program State Library Building Louisiana Natural Heritage Program 1515 E. 6th Avenue Department of Wildlife & Fisheries Helena, MT 59620 P.O. Box 98000 (406) 444-3009 Baton Rouge, LA 70898-9000 (504) 765-2821 Navajo Natural Heritage Program Navajo Fish & Wildlife Department Maine Natural Areas Program P.O. Box 1480 Department of Conservation Window Rock, AZ 86515-1480 93 State House Station (520) 871-6472 Augusta, ME 04333-0093 (207) 287-8044 Nebraska Natural Heritage Program Game and Parks Commission Maine Endangered Species Program 2200 North 33rd Street Department of Inland Fisheries & Wildlife P.O. Box 30370 650 State Street Lincoln, NE 68503 Bangor, ME 04401-5654 (402) 471-5500 (207) 941-4466 Nevada Natural Heritage Program Maryland Heritage & Biodiversity Department of Conservation & Natural Resources Conservation Programs 1550 E. College Parkway, Suite 145 Department of Natural Resources Carson City, NV 89706-7921 Tawes State Office Building, E-1 (702) 687-4245 Annapolis, MD 21401 (410) 260-8540 New Hampshire Natural Heritage Inventory Department of Resources & Economic Massachusetts Natural Heritage & Endangered Development Species Program 172 Pembroke Street Division of Fisheries & Wildlife P.O. Box 1856 Route 135 Concord, NH 03302-1856 Westborough, MA 01581 (603) 271-3623 (508) 792-7270 ext. 200

67 New Jersey Natural Heritage Program PNDI-West Office of Natural Lands Management Western Pennsylvania Conservancy 22 South Clinton Avenue, 209 Fourth Avenue P.O. Box 404 Pittsburgh, PA 15222 Trenton, NJ 08625-0404 (412) 288-2777 (609) 984-1339 PNDI-Central New Mexico Natural Heritage Program Bureau of Forestry University of New Mexico P.O. Box 8552 851 University Blvd. S.E. Harrisburg, PA 17105-8552 Suite 101 (717) 783-3444 Albuquerque, NM 87131-1091 (505) 272-3545 Rhode Island Natural Heritage Program Rhode Island Department of Environmental New York Natural Heritage Program Management Department of Environmental Conservation Division of Planning & Development 700 Troy-Schenectady Road 235 Promenade Street, 3rd Floor Latham, NY 12110-2400 Providence, RI 02908 (518) 783-3932 (401) 277-2776, x4308

North Carolina Natural Heritage Program South Carolina Heritage Trust NC Department of Environment, Health & Natural SC Department of Natural Resources Resources P.O. Box 167 Division of Parks & Recreation Columbia, SC 29202 P.O. Box 27687 (803) 734-3893 Raleigh, NC 27611-7687 (919) 733-4181 South Dakota Natural Heritage Data Base SD Department of Game, Fish & Parks North Dakota Natural Heritage Inventory Wildlife Division North Dakota Parks & Recreation Department 523 E. Capitol Avenue 1835 Bismarck Expressway Pierre, SD 57501-3182 Bismarck, ND 58504 (605) 773-4227 (701) 328-5357 Tennessee Division of Natural Heritage Ohio Natural Heritage Data Base Dept. of Environment & Conservation Division of Natural Areas & Preserves 401 Church St. Department of Natural Resources Nashville, TN 37243-0447 1889 Fountain Square, Building F-1 (615) 532-0431 Columbus, OH 43224 (614) 265-6453 TVA Regional Natural Heritage Resource Group Division of Land Management Oklahoma Natural Heritage Inventory Tennessee Valley Authority Oklahoma Biological Survey Norris, TN 37828 111 East Chesapeake Street (423) 632-1593 University of Oklahoma Norman, OK 73019-0575 Texas Conservation Data Center (405) 325-1985 P.O. Box 1440 San Antonio, TX 78295-1440 Oregon Natural Heritage Program (210) 224-8774 821 SE 14th Avenue Portland, OR 97214 Utah Natural Heritage Program (503) 731-3070; 230-1221 Utah Division of Wildlife Resources 1594 West North Temple, Suite 2110 Pennsylvania Natural Diversity Inventory Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6301 PNDI-East (801) 538-4700 The Nature Conservancy 34 Airport Drive Middletown, PA 17057 (717) 948-3962

68 Vermont Nongame & Natural Heritage Program West Virginia Natural Heritage Program Vermont Fish & Wildlife Department Division of Natural Resources 103 S. Main Street, 10 South Ward Road, P.O. Box 67 Waterbury, VT 05671-0501 Elkins, WV 26241 (802) 241-3700 (304) 637-0245

Virginia Division of Natural Heritage Wisconsin Natural Heritage Program Department of Conservation & Recreation Department of Natural Resources 1500 East Main Street, Suite 312 Endangered Resources/4 Richmond, VA 23219 101 S. Webster Street, Box 7921 (804) 786-7951 Madison, WI 53707 (608) 266-7012 Washington Natural Heritage Program Department of Natural Resources Wyoming Natural Diversity Database P.O. Box 47016 1604 Grand Avenue, Suite 2 Olympia, WA 98504-7016 Laramie, WY 82070 (360) 902-1340 (307) 745-5026

Natural Areas Program Department of Natural Resources P.O. Box 47016 Olympia, WA 98504-7016 (360) 902-1340

69 Acknowledgments

The report would not be possible without the work of many state and regional Natural Heritage Program staff, Nature Conservancy staff, and the many scientific collaborators who assisted in developing the specific occurrence data and conservation status data upon which the analyses in this report are based. The Association for Biodiversity Information facilitated the compilation of the occurrence data into a national data set for the analyses. We also would like to thank the following reviewers for their thoughtful comments: John Alder- man, J. David Allan, Nancy Braker, David Braun, Ron Cicerello, Glenn Clemmer, Leslie Colley, Chris- tine A. De Joy, Stephen P. Hall, Jonathan Higgins, Deborah B. Jensen, Lisie Kitchel, Ruth Mathews, Meesh McCarthy, Gary Meffee, Michael Mendelson, Jennie Myers, Christopher Pague, Linda Pearsall, Michael Reuter, Brian Richter, Rob Riordan, Stephen Roble, Charlie Scott, Barbara J. Shapiro, Danielle Shirley, Peggy W. Shute, Thomas Smith, and William Stolzenburg. Figure 5 (Critical Watersheds) benefited from reviews by Natural Heritage Program staff and Nature Conservancy staff in most states, as well as from reviews by the following individuals: John Alderman, Richard Biggins, Robert Butler, Kevin Cummings, George Cunningham, David Etnier, Jef- frey Garner, John Harris, Paul Hartfield, Robert Howells, Eugene Keferl, Charles Lydeard, Scott Mettee, Peter Moyle, William Pflieger, Tom Watters, Jack Williams, and James Williams. We gratefully acknowledge the Regina Bauer Frankenberg Foundation for Animal Welfare and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for their support of this report. We would also like to acknowledge the U.S. Forest Service and the World Wildlife Fund-U.S. for their support of research that contributed to these analyses. We gratefully acknowledge Canon U.S.A., Inc., which makes possible publication of this report as part of the Conservancy’s NatureServe® program. Special thanks are due to Publishers Printing Company, Inc. for furnishing paper and printing for this report.

70 Credits

EDITORS: Lawrence L. Master, Stephanie R. Flack and Bruce A. Stein

CONTRIBUTING WRITERS: James R. Aldrich, Stephanie R. Flack, James Fries, Randy Haddock, George Ivey, Kyla J. Lawson, Andy Laurenzi, Kristi Lynett, Lawrence L. Master, Jennie Myers, Robert M. Riordan, Bruce A. Stein, Caryn Vaughn, Diane Vosick

DATA COMPILATION AND RESEARCH: Bruce Hoffmann, Lynn S. Kutner, Lawrence L. Master, Ruth E. Mathews, Michael Mendelson, Melissa A. Morrison, Christine A. O’Brien

GIS ANALYSIS AND MAP PRODUCTION: Linda Evers, Stacy Hoppen, Ron Leonard, Rob Solomon, Hal M. Watson

ILLUSTRATIONS: S. Beibers, page 3; Rebecca Flint, page 35; Megan Grey Rollins, pages 16, 29, 33, 37, cover; and Kate Spencer, pages 1, 26, 31, 39, 42, cover

PHOTOGRAPHS: Blair Nikula, page 5; Charlie Ott, page12; Brian Richter, page 14; Harold E. Malde, pages 15, 17, 20, 22, 34, 41; Jon Golden, pages 25, 27; Adam Jones, page 28; Beth Maynor Young, page 30; George Ivey, page 32; Caryn Vaughn, page 36; J. Fries, page 38, and Alan D. St. John, page 45

DESIGN AND PRODUCTION: Nicole S. Rousmaniere

PRINTING AND PAPER: Courtesy of Publishers Printing Company, Inc., Shepherdsville, Kentucky